Hebrews 7:11

Observe the necessity there was of raising up another priest, after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron, by whom that perfection should come which could not come by the Levitical priesthood, which therefore must be changed, and the whole economy with it, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, etc. Here,

I. It is asserted that perfection could not come by the Levitical priesthood and the law. They could not put those who came to them into the perfect enjoyment of the good things they pointed out to them; they could only show them the way.

II. That therefore another priest must be raised up, after the order of Melchisedec, by whom, and his law of faith, perfection might come to all who obey him; and, blessed be God, that we may have perfect holiness and perfect happiness by Christ in the covenant of grace, according to the gospel, for we are complete in him.

III. It is asserted that the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law; there being so near a relation between the priesthood and the law, the dispensation could not be the same under another priesthood; a new priesthood must be under a new regulation, managed in another way, and by rules proper to its nature and order.

IV. It is not only asserted, but proved, that the priesthood and law are changed, Heb 7:13, Heb 7:14. The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come are abolished, and a priest has arisen, and a dispensation is now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. Now that there is such a change is obvious.

1. There is a change in the tribe of which the priesthood comes. Before, it was the tribe of Levi; but our great high priest sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning the priesthood, Heb 7:14. This change of the family shows a real change of the law of the priesthood.

2. There is a change in the form and order of making the priests. Before, in the Levitical priesthood, they were made after the law of a carnal commandment; but our great high priest was made after the power of an endless life. The former law appointed that the office should descend, upon the death of the father, to his eldest son, according to the order of carnal or natural generation; for none of the high priests under the law were without father or mother, or without descent: they had not life and immortality in themselves. They had both beginning of days and end of life; and so the carnal commandment, or law of primogeniture, directed their succession, as it did in matters of civil right and inheritance. But the law by which Christ was constituted a priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was the power of an endless life. The life and immortality which he had in himself were his right and title to the priesthood, not his descent from former priests. This makes a great difference in the priesthood, and in the economy too, and gives the preference infinitely to Christ and the gospel. The very law which constituted the Levitical priesthood supposed the priests to be weak, frail, dying, creatures, not able to preserve their own natural lives, but who must be content and glad to survive in their posterity after the flesh; much less could they, by any power or authority they had, convey spiritual life and blessedness to those who came to them. But the high priest of our profession holds his office by that innate power of endless life which he has in himself, not only to preserve himself alive, but to communicate spiritual and eternal life to all those who duly rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. Some thing the law of the carnal commandment refers to the external rites of consecration, and the carnal offerings that were made; but the power of an endless life to the spiritual living sacrifices proper to the gospel, and the spiritual and eternal privileges purchased by Christ, who was consecrated by the eternal Spirit of life that he received without measure.

3. There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men's persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage.

4. There is a change in God's way of acting in this priesthood. He has taken an oath to Christ, which he never did to any of the order of Aaron. God never gave them any such assurance of their continuance, never engaged himself by oath or promise that theirs should be an everlasting priesthood, and therefore gave them no reason to expect the perpetuity of it, but rather to look upon it as a temporary law. But Christ was made a priest with the oath of God: The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, Heb 7:21. Here God has upon oath declared the immutability, excellency, efficacy, and eternity, of the priesthood of Christ.

5. There is a change in that covenant of which the priesthood was a security and the priest a surety; that is, a change in the dispensation of that covenant. The gospel dispensation is more full, free, perspicuous, spiritual, and efficacious, than that of the law. Christ is in this gospel covenant a surety for us to God and for God to us, to see that the articles be performed on both parts He, as surety, has united the divine and human nature together in his own person, and therein given assurance of reconciliation; and he has, as surety, united God and man together in the bond of the everlasting covenant. He pleads with men to keep their covenant with god, and he pleads with God that he will fulfil his promises to men, which he is always ready to do in a way suitable to his majesty and glory, that is, through a Mediator.

6. There is a remarkable change in the number of the priests under these different orders. In that of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests, not at once, but successively; but in this of Christ there is but one and the same. The reason is plain, The Levitical priests were many, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. Their office, how high and honourable soever, could not secure them from dying; and, as one died, another must succeed, and after a while must give place to a third, till the number had become very great. But this our high priest continues for ever, and his priesthood is aparabaton - an unchangeable one, that does not pass from one to another, as the former did; it is always in the same hand. There can be no vacancy in this priesthood, no hour nor moment in which the people are without a priest to negotiate their spiritual concerns in heaven. Such a vacancy might be very dangerous and prejudicial to them; but this is their safety and happiness, that this ever-living high priest is able to save to the utmost - in all times, in all cases, in every juncture - all who come to God by him, Heb 7:25. So that here is a manifest alteration much for the better.

7. There is a remarkable difference in the moral qualifications of the priests. Those who were of the order of Aaron were not only mortal men, but sinful men, who had their sinful as well as natural infirmities; they needed to offer up sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the people. But our high priest, who was consecrated by the word of the oath, needed only to offer up once for the people, never at all for himself; for he has not only an immutable consecration to his office, but an immutable sanctity in his person. He is such a high priest as became us, holy, harmless, and undefiled, etc., Heb 7:26-28. Here observe, (1.) Our case, as sinners, needed a high priest to make satisfaction and intercession for us. (2.) No priest could be suitable or sufficient for our reconciliation to God but one who was perfectly righteous in his own person; he must be righteous in himself, or he could not be a propitiation for our sin, or our advocate with the Father. (3.) The Lord Jesus was exactly such a high priest as we wanted, for he has a personal holiness, absolutely perfect. Observe the description we have of the personal holiness of Christ expressed in various terms, all of which some learned divines consider as relating to his perfect purity. [1.] He is holy, perfectly free from all the habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature; no sin dwells in him, though it does in the best of Christians, not the least sinful inclination [2.] He is harmless, perfectly free from all actual transgression, has done no violence, nor is there any deceit in his mouth, never did the least wrong to God or man. [3.] He is undefiled, he was never accessory to other men's sins. It is a difficult thing to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake in the guilt of other men's sins, by contributing in some way towards them, or not doing what we ought to prevent them. Christ was undefiled; though he took upon him the guilt of our sins, yet he never involved himself in the fact and fault of them. [4.] He is separate from sinners, not only in his present state (having entered as our high priest into the holiest of all, into which nothing defiled can enter), but in his personal purity: he has no such union with sinners, either natural or federal, as can devolve upon him original sin. This comes upon us by virtue of our natural and federal union with the first Adam, we descending from him in the ordinary way. But Christ was, by his ineffable conception in the virgin, separate from sinners; though he took a true human nature, yet the miraculous way in which it was conceived set him upon a separate footing from all the rest of mankind. [5.] He is made higher than the heavens. Most expositors understand this concerning his state of exaltation in heaven, at the right hand of God, to perfect the design of his priesthood. But Dr. Goodwin thinks this may be very justly referred to the personal holiness of Christ, which is greater and more perfect than the holiness of the hosts of heaven, that is, the holy angels themselves, who, though they are free from sin, yet are not in themselves free from all possibility of sinning. And therefore we read, God putteth no trust in his holy ones, and he chargeth his angels with folly (Job 4:18), that is, with weakness and peccability. They may be angels one hour and devils another, as many of them were; and that the holy angels shall not now fall does not proceed from an indefectibility of nature, but from the election of God; they are elect angels. It is very probable that this explanation of the words, made higher than the heavens, may be thought too much strained, and that it ought to be understood of the dignity of Christ's state, and not the perfect holiness of his person; and the rather because it is said he was made higher genomenos; but it is well known that this word is used in a neutral sense, as where it is said, genesthē ho Theos alēthēs - Let God be true. The other characters in the verse plainly belong to the personal perfection of Christ in holiness, as opposed to the sinful infirmities of the Levitical priests; and it seems congruous to think this must do so too, if it may be fairly taken in such a sense; and it appears yet more probable, since the validity and prevalency of Christ's priesthood in Heb 7:27 are placed in the impartiality and disinterestedness of it. He needed not to offer up for himself: it was a disinterested mediation; he mediated for that mercy for others which he did not need for himself; had he needed it himself, he had been a party, and could not have been a Mediator - a criminal, and could not have been an advocate for sinners. Now, to render his mediation the more impartial and disinterested, it seems requisite not only that he had no present need of that favour for himself which he mediated for in behalf of others, but that he never could stand in need of it. Though he needed it not today, yet if he knew he might be in such circumstances as to need it tomorrow, or at any future time, he must have been thought to have had some eye upon his own interest, and therefore could not act with impartial regard and pure zeal for the honour of God on one hand, and tender pure compassion for poor sinners on the other. I pretend not here to follow the notes of our late excellent expositor, into whose labours we have entered, but have taken the liberty to vindicate this notion of the learned Dr. Goodwin from the exceptions that I know have been made to it; and I have the rather done it because, if it will hold good, it gives us further evidence how necessary it was that the Mediator should be God, since no mere creature is of himself possessed of that impeccability which will set him above all possible need of favour and mercy for himself.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb_7:11-13

A change also of the law

Change in the law

It is modified in these circumstances:

1.

In regard of justification (Act_13:39). The law was first given to justify the observers thereof; but now in regard of mans corruption that is impossible (Rom_8:3; Gal_3:11). God therefore now hath appointed another means for that end, which is Christ and faith in Him Act_13:39; Rom_3:28).

2. In regard of the rigour thereof. The law accepteth no duty but that which is every way perfect. This much is implied (Rom_10:5). This, there, fore, is the doom of the law (Gal_3:10). Yet there is a righteousness (though not framed according to this exact rule) which is accepted of God. This is the righteousness of faith, whereby laying hold on Christs righteousness to be justified (Act_24:16).

3. In regard of an accidental power which the law, through mans corruption, hath to increase sin, and to make it out of measure sinful Rom_7:13). For the very forbidding of a sin by the law maketh the corrupt heart of man more eagerly pursue it: as a stubborn child will do a thing the more, because it is forbidden. There is a secret antipathy in our corrupt nature to Gods pure law. But by the Spirit of Christ that antipathy is taken away, and another disposition wrought in true believers: namely, a true desire and faithful endeavour to avoid what the law forbiddeth; and to do that which it requireth. In this respect, saith the apostle, I delight in the law of God concerning the inward man (Rom_7:22).

4. In regard of the curse of the law. Yet the law peremptorily denounceth a curse against every transgressor and transgression (De Gal_3:10). The law admits no sure y, nor accepts any repentance. Thus, all men having sinned, come short of the glory of God Rom_3:23). Yet this curse doth not light on all (Gal_2:13). In this respect, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom_8:1). Though the moral law be altered in the forementioned respects, yet still it remains to be of use for instruction and direction.

1. For instruction, it demonstrateth these points following:

(1) What God Himself is (Exo_20:2).

(2) Want His holy will is (Psa_40:8).

(3) What our duty is to God and man (Mat_22:37-39).

(4) What sin is (1Jn_3:4; Rom_3:20).

(5) What are the kinds of sin (Jam_2:11; Rom_7:7).

(6) What the pravity of our nature is (Rom_7:14).

(7) What the sinfulness of our lives is (Rom_7:19).

(8) Gods approbation of obedience (Exo_20:6; Exo_20:12).

(9) Gods detestation of transgressors (Exo_20:5; Exo_20:7).

(10) The fearful doom of sinners (Gal_3:10).

(11) Mans disability to keep the law (Rom_8:3).

(12) The necessity of another means of salvation (Rom_3:20-21).

2. For direction. The law is of use to these points following:

(1) To convince men of sin.

(2) To humble them for the same.

(3) To work an hatred of sin.

(4) To restrain them from it.

(5) To work self-denial.

(6) To drive men to Christ.

(7) To put them on to endeavour after as near a conformity to the law as they can.

(8) To make them fearful of pulling upon their souls a more fearful doom than the curse of the law: which is by despising the gospel.

(9) To make impenitents the more inexcusable.

(10) To make believers more thankful for Christs active and passive obedience; whereby as a surety He hath done for them what they could not, and endured that curse which they deserved, to free them from the same. (W. Gouge.)

Divine institutions abrogated

I. NOTWITHSTANDING THE GREAT PROVOCATIONS OF THEM BY WHOM IT WAS EXERCISED AND DISCHARGED, YET GOD TOOK IT NOT AWAY, UNTIL IT HAD ACCOMPLISHED THE END WHEREUNTO IT WAS DESIGNED.

1. Neither the wickedness of the people nor of the priests themselves could provoke the Lord to revoke His institution until the appointed end of it was come.

2. God took it not away till He brought in that which was more excellent, and advantageous unto the Church, namely, the Priesthood of Christ. And if this be not received through their unbelief, they alone are the cause of their being losers by this alteration.

3. In abundant patience and condescension, with respect unto that interest which it had in the consciences of men from His institution, God did not utterly lay it aside in a day, after which it should be absolutely unlawful to comply with it. But God took it away by degrees.

II. THE EFFICACY OF ALL ORDINANCES OR INSTITUTIONS OF WORSHIP DEPENDS ON THE WILL OF GOD ALONE. Whilst it was His will that the priesthood should abide in the family of Levi, it was useful and effectual unto all the ends whereunto it was designed. But when He would make an alteration therein, it was in vain for any to look for either benefit or advantage by it. And although we are not now to expect any change in the institutions of Divine worship, yet all our expectations from them are to be resolved into the will of God.

III. DIVINE INSTITUTIONS CEASE NOT WITHOUT AN EXPRESS DIVINE ABROGATION. Where they are once granted by the authority of God, they can never cease without an express act of the same authority taking of them away.

IV. GOD WILL NEVER ABROGATE OR TAKE AWAY ANY INSTITUTION OR ORDINANCE OF WORSHIP UNTO THE LOSS OR DISADVANTAGE OF THE CHURCH. He would not remove or abolish the priesthood of Levi, until that which was incomparably more excellent was introduced and established.

V. GOD IN HIS WISDOM SO ORDERED ALL THINGS, THAT THE TAKING AWAY OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE LAW, GAVE IT ITS GREATEST GLORY. For it ceased not before it had fully accomplished the end whereunto it was designed, which is the perfection of any ordinance: even the mediation of Christ Himself shall cease when all the ends of it are fulfilled. And this end of the priesthood was most glorious; namely, the bringing in that of Christ, and therein of the eternal salvation of the Church.

VI. IT IS A FRUIT OF THE MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD, THAT IT WAS A GREAT MERCY TO GIVE THE LAW, AND THE GREATER TO TAKE IT AWAY. VII. If under the law the whole worship of God did so depend on the priesthood, and that failing or being taken away, the whole worship of itself was to cease, as being no more acceptable before God; HOW MUCH MORE IS ALL WORSHIP UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT REJECTED BY HIM, IF

THERE BE NOT A DUE REGARD THEREIN UNTO THE LORD CHRIST, as the only High Priest of the Church, and to the efficacy of His discharge of that office.

VIII. It is the highest vanity to pretend use or continuance in the Church, FROM POSSESSION OR PRESCRIPTION, OR PRETENDED BENEFIT, BEAUTY, ORDER, OR ADVANTAGE, WHEN ONCE THE MIND OF GOD IS DECLARED AGAINST IT. The pleas of this kind for the old priesthood and law excelled all that can be insisted on with respect unto any other things for which any pretend a veneration in Divine worship; yet were they of no validity or efficacy. (John Owen, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:11. The apostle, having cleared his way from objections, now enters on his principal argument concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it with respect to righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God which depend thereon. If, therefore, or, now if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood — If it perfectly answered all God’s designs and man’s wants; what further need was there that another priest — A priest of a new order; should rise — Or be set up; and not one after the order of Aaron? — As if he had said, Since by what has been advanced it appears from Scripture that another priesthood was to arise after Aaron’s, of another order, it follows hence that perfection could not be attained by that of Aaron; for if it could, that certainly would not have been removed, and another substituted in its place. In other words, the prediction of the rising up of a priest of a different order from that of Aaron, is a declaration of the inefficacy of the Levitical priesthood, and of God’s intention to change it. Instead of the clause, for under it, (namely, the Levitical priesthood,) Macknight reads, on account of it, the people received the law — Observing that the law “was prior to the priesthood, being given for the purpose of forming and establishing the priesthood; and that the Jewish people themselves were separated from the rest of mankind, and made a people by the law, merely that they might, as a nation, worship the only true God according to the Levitical ritual, in settling which most of the precepts of the law were employed. This being the case, is it any wonder that such of the Jews as looked no farther than the outside of the priesthood and law, imagined that perfection, in respect of pardon and acceptance with God, was to be obtained by the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, and in that persuasion believed they never would be abolished? Nevertheless, if they had understood the true meaning of the law, they would have known that it was a typical oracle, in which, by its services, the priesthood and sacrifice of the Son of God were prefigured, and that by calling his Son a priest, not after the order of Aaron, but after that of Melchisedec, God declared that his services as a High-Priest, and the sacrifice of himself which he was to offer, were entirely different, both in their nature and effects, from the Levitical services and sacrifices, and that they were to be substituted in the room of these services, for which there was no occasion after the priest and sacrifices which they prefigured, were come.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES

Heb_7:11.—Here begins the argument of the next nine verses. Perfection.—A difficult word; the full meaning of everything that could be required of a human priesthood. “Power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view.” This was not to be attained through the Levitical priesthood. Some say the term means “accomplishment”; others “sanctification”; others “consummate happiness”; others “moral rectitude.” Compare Heb_9:9-14; Heb_10:1, Heb_10:2-4; Heb_10:3; Heb_10:14. The point of the writer is, that it could not meet the entire circle of human need. It could neither spiritually purify their worshippers, nor free them from the conscience-burden of their sins, nor from their apprehension of eternal punishment. There was, therefore, manifest room for another priesthood after another order.

Heb_7:12. Being changed.—Better, “being transferred”; a mild and delicate term is purposely chosen, μετατίθημι. “It is a characteristic of the writer to be thus careful not to shock the prejudices of his readers more than was inevitable. His whole style of argument, though no less effective than that of St. Paul in his own sphere, is more conciliatory, more deferential, less vehemently iconoclastic. This relation to St. Paul is like that of Melancthon to Luther” (Farrar). Also of the law.—From a ceremonial to a spiritual range. With the ceremonial alone had the Levitical priest to deal. This change of the law is not sufficiently recognised. It is easy to go astray if we attempt to explain the work of Christ by the formal terms of the Mosaic law. Christ is the fulfilment of its spiritual suggestions and meanings.

Heb_7:14. Out of Juda.—Whatever may be the difficulties of our Lord’s genealogies, as given in Matthew and Luke, the fact is clear that He belonged to Judah, not Levi. This is mentioned as one instance of change in the law.

Heb_7:15. More evident.—Because there is a distinct prophecy and promise of another priest. Ariseth.—Is to arise.

Heb_7:16. Carnal.—Fleshly, in the range of the outward, the material. Not here “fleshly” in its bad sense, but simply “human.” Power of an endless life.—Stuart renders ἐντολῆς σαρκικῆς as preceptum caducum, an obligation of a temporary, perishable nature; and ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, indissoluble life, or perpetuity. The word ἀκαταλύτος is not elsewhere found in the New Testament. Based on the assumption that the priesthood of Melchizedek was without limitations of time.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Heb_7:11-17

The Two Priestly Orders.—It must be evident to every candid reader of this epistle that its author does not use the older Scriptures as confirmation or proof precisely in the way that we do. He probably follows the method taught in the Rabbinical schools, which laid undue stress upon single, and often subordinate, words. It is necessary to bear in mind that truths are eternally true, but the methods in which they are presented and proved belong to each particular age, and are precisely adapted to each age. We are not obliged to recognise the force of every argument that has ever been used to support a truth. The Divine inspiration works through the mental methods and mental moods of each age, with a precise adaptation to one age, and a general adaptation to all ages. What the student has to do is to put himself into the times when a particular method of proof was used, and so get to feel its precise force. And this may be quite in harmony with his endeavours to find and use the method of proof which may be effective on his own generation. These remarks are important because the proofs from Scripture given in this epistle often become a grave stumbling-block to critical-minded readers. All the offices which the Lord Jesus Christ is represented as filling are interesting to us. Some we can appreciate at once. Some require much and careful thought before we are able to trace their permanent relations and value. And some are difficult to appraise aright, because we have no help from our associations. Such an office is that of priest. We are not in any sense familiar with it. It does not come into the range of ordinary Christian thought, but it was bound up with the religious thought, and the daily life, of the Jews. And this writer addressed Jews, to whom the high priest was a most familiar figure, and who had thoughts about him that we can hardly realise. In endeavouring to detach the Jewish Christians from their new-found faith in Christ, the bigoted Jews made a strong point of the fact that Jesus could not be a priest, seeing that they all admitted the Aaronic priesthood to be the direct appointment of God. So far from Jesus being in the Aaronic order, He did not even belong to the tribe of Levi, but to a tribe of which nothing had been said concerning priesthood. This was a very fair plea from their outward, national, and limited standpoint. It is indeed so fair a plea that the writer of this epistle feels bound to give it elaborate and careful consideration, meeting this strictly Jewish objection on strictly Jewish lines. Admitting that God did establish the Aaronic order of priesthood, and that it stood, and always had stood, upon the Divine authorisation, he argues—

1. That God’s having appointed one order does not involve that He never has appointed, and never will appoint, any other. In asserting the priesthood of Christ, it is only necessary for him to prove that the same God appointed Him, in His order, as appointed the Aaronic priests in theirs; and consequently that Christ, as priest, equally acts upon Divine authorisation.

2. But he can advance on this, and say, not only may God appoint another order of priesthood, but He has done so; He had done so long before He established the Aaronic order, and entirely independent of it. The order of Melchizedek was no seed out of which the Aaronic order grew; it was a priesthood for men quite distinct from the priesthood for a particular nation—the Jews. Patriarchal priesthood was established by God long ages before the Levitical. It was a universal human priesthood, and out of the range of the limited Mosaic Revelation 3. Then he is able to make a somewhat surprising assertion. The earlier order of Melchizedek was recognised by the later as higher than itself, and the earlier order actually received the representative homage of the later. It received tithes from Abraham. “And so to say, through Abraham, even Levi, who received tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.”

4. The appeal is now made to Scripture. God can make a new order; God had made another order; and God has actually promised in the Scripture to raise up a new priest after the older order.

5. That promise, he claims, was fulfilled in the raising up of Jesus, and constituting Him priest, not as the Aaronic, “after the law of a carnal commandment,” but as the order of Melchizedek, “after the power of an endless [indissoluble] life.” It is important that we should understand the distinctions between the two priestly orders, so that we may recognise the peculiarities of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I. The order of Melchizedek had all the permanent essentials of priesthood.—And these are three:

1. The power of intercession. Too readily we assume that the essential thing in priesthood is presidency over a religious ceremonial, which includes sacrifice. But this is an accident of priesthood; the essential thing is his acting as medium of communication between God and man—the difference between a “priest” and a “prophet” being that a priest so acts constantly, and the prophet so acts occasionally. In thinking of the Jewish high priest we seldom see the importance of wearing the breastplate, and being the people’s mediator. Melchizedek was an intercessor. He stood for Abraham to present to God the tithes of thanksgiving. He stood for God to present to Abraham acceptance and blessing.

2. The power of character. Ideally this is absolutely essential to priesthood. It is the secret of acceptance with God, and the secret of influence on men. It is the basis of reverence and trust. It was not guaranteed in Jewish priests, seeing their office was hereditary: it was found in Melchizedek, as indicated in the respect shown him, which Abraham felt, and responded to.

3. The power of continuity. A priesthood which is really efficient cannot be thought of as stopped or changed. If there is need for change in it, then there must be some imperfection in it, or in its adaptations. The priesthood of Melchizedek was never changed while he lived. The ideal priesthood of man, which he represented, God established for ever; He has never changed it: in the line of the absolute priesthood of universal humanity Jesus came.

II. The order of Aaron had certain temporary characteristics.—Especially may be noticed its—

1. Limitation to a

(1) nation,

(2) tribe,

(3) time. Jewish priests only held office from thirty to sixty years of age.

2. Its hereditary character, which did not involve any direct Divine call to individuals. A man was an Aaronic priest, not because he was singularly fitted for the office, but because his father was a priest.

3. Its sacrificial character. Careful distinction needs to be made between the great and universal human ideas of sacrifice, and the small and particular Jewish ideas of sacrifice, connected with a local religion, a limited revelation, and an elaborate social and ceremonial system. The priests of the Jewish cult must be distinguished from the priests of humanity. In Judaism the system was greater than any individual.

III. The priesthood of Christ represents the permanent, and not the temporary, ideas of priesthood.—Therefore it is said to be after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron.

1. He is our Intercessor. This is the essential side of priestliness. It need not be affirmed that Melchizedek presented no sacrifice, but it should be noticed that no mention is made of any in the narrative (Genesis 14), and that the interceding element of his priesthood is the one set forth prominently.

2. His power lies in His personal character. “Such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separate from sins.” He, on this ground, stands in acceptance with God: “He offered Himself without spot to God.” He, on this ground, gains influence on men, who always respond, with their confidence, to ideal goodness.

3. And His relation is a continuous one. He has an unchangeable priesthood, in the power of an endless life. What He is to us He is for ever, He is so long as we need Him.

Conclusion.—The cry of human souls, in the sense of their separation from God, is for a priest, an intercessor. That cry can never be stilled by the ministry of any man. It can be quieted, and the soul can be satisfied, with the full, and practical, acceptance of Jesus as actually now, for us, “our great High Priest, passed into the heavens,” “ever living to make intercession or us.”

SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES

Heb_7:11. Perfection as Complete Meeting of Requirements.—Perfection applied to the uncreated, independent Being, God, is an absolute quality. It is the standard. But perfection applied to any one, or anything, in the created sphere, can never be more than a relative thing. It may reach the standard of its particular class or order. An absolutely perfect man is inconceivable. A man perfect, according to the perfection that is possible to humanity, is conceivable. An act of a created human being that is absolutely perfect is inconceivable, but an act judged perfect according to the standard of the class of acts to which it belonged is quite conceivable. And only such perfection can be of any real or vital interest to us, because only such perfection is attainable by us. Another idea of perfection is embodied in the word “entire.” It is often applied to animals. Given a whole set of organs and capacities as belonging to an animal, if we find all those organs and capacities in any animal, and those organs all in full health, and harmonious proportions, we call that animal “entire.” And it is easy to see how the idea can be applied in the Christian life. But in our text the idea of “perfection,” though related, is somewhat different. A thing is “perfect” when it precisely and fully meets what is reasonably required and expected of it. So a man who invents or makes a machine strives to make it “perfect” in the sense of adequately meeting what is expected of it. It is “imperfect” if it leaves any expectation unfulfilled, or only half fulfilled. In this sense of “perfection” the old Mosaic economy of sacrifices, and ceremonies, and formal rules has to be judged. And so judged, the writer is compelled to condemn it as imperfect. Given the reasonable expectations of a particular nation, in a particular set of circumstances, and at a particular time, and the Levitical system may be considered “perfect.” But given the requirements of man as man, of man as a moral being, of man as sinful, of man as out of relations with God, of man as deteriorated by his wilfulness—given the requirements of man’s conscience and will, and relations with God, and with fellow-men, and then the Levitical system must be condemned; perfection is not that formal, outward way. A spiritual religious system is wanted in order to meet spiritual conditions.

Heb_7:16. The Power of an Endless Life.—The suggestion is, that the priesthood of Christ is graduated by the wants and measures of the human soul, as the priesthood of the law was not; that the endless life in which He comes matches and measures the endless life in mankind whose fall He is to restore; providing a salvation as strong as their sin, and as long or lasting as the run of their immortality.

I. The power of an endless life in man, what it is, and, as being under sin, requires.—The word translated “power” in the text is the original of our word “dynamic,” denoting a certain impetus, momentum, or causative force, which is cumulative, growing stronger and more impelling as it goes. And this is the nature of life or vital force universally—it is a force cumulative as long as it continues. The cumulative powers of vegetable life are only feeble types of that higher, fearfully vaster power, that pertains to the endless life of a soul—that power that, known or unknown, dwells in you and in me. The possible majesty to which any free intelligence of God may grow, in the endless increment of ages, is after all rather hinted than imaged in their merely vegetable grandeur. Mere attention to eternal duration limits thought and apprehension. If we look no further, that is only the eternal continuance of its mediocrity or comparative littleness. Its eternal growth in volume and power is, in that manner, quite lost sight of. The growth of the soul is a merely spiritual growth, indicated by no visible and material form that is expanded by it and with it. As in old age there seems to be an apparent limit to the spiritual powers and faculties, we drop into the impression that these have now passed their climacteric. But the soul outgrows the growth and outlives the vigour of the body, which is not true in trees. In the beginning of the soul’s history, it is a mere seed of possibility. But a doom of growth is in it, and the hidden momentum of an endless life is driving it on. What a chasm there is between the idiot and the man! One a being unprogressive, a being who is not a power; the other a careering force started on its way to eternity, a principle of might and majesty begun to be unfolded, and to be progressively unfolded for ever. Intelligence, reason, conscience, observation, choice, memory, enthusiasm—all the fires of his inborn eternity are kindling to a glow, and, looking on him as a force immortal, just beginning to reveal the symptoms of what he shall be, we call him man. And yet we have, in the power thus developed, nothing more than a mere hint or initial sign of what is to be the real stature of his personality in the process of his everlasting development. We exist here only in the small, that God may have us in a state of flexibility, and bend or fashion us, at the best advantage, to the model of His own great life and character. And most of us, therefore, have scarcely a conception of the exceeding weight of glory to be comprehended in our existence. Illustration may be taken from the faculty of memory, imagination, acquisition—from the executive energy of the will, from the benevolent affections, and from all the active powers. What force must be finally developed in what now appears to be the tenuous and fickle impulse, and the merely frictional activity of a human soul! But this expression looks on the soul as a falling power, a bad force, rushing downward into ruinous and final disorder. It was this which made the mighty priesthood of the Lord necessary. By what adequate power, in earth or in heaven, shall man’s sin be taken away?

II. What Christ, in His eternal priesthood, has done; or the fitness and practical necessity of it, as related to the stupendous exigency of our redemption.—The great impediment which the gospel of Christ encounters in our world is that it is too great a work. It transcends our belief—it wears a look of extravagance. We are beings too insignificant and low to engage any such interest on the part of God, or justify any such expenditure. In the contemplations started on this subject, the purpose is to start some conception of ourselves, in the power of an endless life, that is more adequate. Mere immortality, or everlasting continuance, when it is the continuance only of littleness or mediocrity, does not make a platform or occasion high enough for this great mystery of the gospel. It is only when we see in human souls, taken as germs of power, a future magnitude and majesty transcending all present measures, that we come into any fit conception at all of Christ’s mission to the world. This power of endless life, could we lay hold of it, could we only grasp the force there is in it, how true and rational, how magnificently Divine would the great salvation of Christ appear, and in how great dread of ourselves should we hasten to it for refuge! Then it would shock us no more that visibly it is no mere man that has arrived. Were He only a human teacher, reformer, philosopher, coming in our human plane to lecture on our self-improvement as men, in the measures of men, He would even be less credible than now. Nothing meets our want, in fact, but to see the boundaries of nature and time break way to let in a Being and a Power visibly not of this world. Let Him be made a priest for us, and not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Humbled to the flesh and its external conditions, He will only the more certainly even Himself with our want, if He dares to say, “Before Abraham was, I am.” The great salvation is a work supernatural transacted in the plane of nature; and what but such a work could restore the broken order of the soul under evil? It incarnates God in the world; and what but some such opening of the senses to God, or of God to the senses, could reinstate Him in minds that have lost the consciousness of Him, and fallen off to live apart? What but this could enter Him again, as a power, into the world’s life and history? We are astonished by the revelation of Divine feeling; the expense of the sacrifice wears a look of extravagance. If we are only the dull mediocrities we commonly take ourselves to be, it is quite incredible. But if God, seeing through our possibilities into our real eternities, comprehends in the view all we are to be or become, as powers of endless life, is there not some probability that He discovers a good deal more in us than we do in ourselves, enough to justify all the concern He testifies, all the sacrifice He makes in the passion of His Son? Inasmuch as our understanding has not yet reached our measures, we plainly want a grace which only faith can receive. Christ therefore comes not as a problem given to our reason, but as a salvation offered to our faith. His passion reaches a deeper point in us than we can definitely think, and His eternal Spirit is a healing priesthood for us, in the lowest and profoundest depths of our great immortality, those which we have never seen ourselves. He is somehow able to come into the very germ principle of our life, and be a central, regulating, new-creating force in our disordered growth itself. And if we speak of righteousness, it is ours when it is not ours. How can a being unrighteous be established in the sense of righteousness? Logically, or according to the sentence of our speculative reason, it is impossible. And yet, in Christ, we have it! We are consciously in it, as we are in Him; and all we can say is, that it is the righteousness of God, by faith, unto all, and upon all, them that believe.—Horace Bushnell, D.D.

An Indissoluble Life.—The Greek word would be more precisely rendered an “indissoluble” life. There are no conceivable agencies, influences, or forces that can break it up. Let a thing once be moved, and it will go on moving for ever, unless something acts upon it to check it. Let a thing once exist, and it will never cease to exist, unless some outside force acts upon it to destroy it. Let a thing be a whole, it will remain a whole for ever, if no power breaks it up. Thus we are absolutely assured of the continuty and unchangeableness of God, because it is wholly impossible for us to conceive of any being, or force, or combination of forces, that can affect them so as to make any change in Him. It may further be observed that continuity is one of our chief “notes of value.” We estimate things in the light of their persistency. They are valuable if they will last unchanged for a long while. The diamond is counted the most valuable of all earthly possessions, not for its appearance, but for its imperishableness. We know of nothing that can destroy it; it outlasts the generations; it can cut its kind, but nothing else can cut it. That note of value is taken to bring home to our minds the infinite value of Christ our Priest and Saviour. He has an “endless,” or an “indissoluble,” priesthood. It is not possible for us to conceive the conditions of humanity for which that priesthood is not necessary and effective. It is not possible for us to conceive of any forces that can ever so affect that priesthood as to make changes in it which will imperil its efficiency.

An Endless Life.—Life! the dearest and most wonderful thing we know—wonderful in its universality, its diversity, its mystery. Next comes life’s crowning wonder, death. Life’s greatest question is, What is it to be dead? What, in death and after death, becomes of life? The answer of the text is, The human race has the power of an endless life. We can, indeed, no more be eternal, as God is, than we can be almighty, or all-present, as God is. What is possible for us is an immortal life in the eternal life of God—to keep in and after death our consciousness, memory, will, and affections—ourselves: to find ourselves alive after death, and alive for evermore.

1. Without laying undue stress upon it, the mere existence of a world-wide belief in an endless life is, in a world with such a history and such daily experiences as ours, very wonderful. The history of the world is a history of death. And yet men refuse to believe in death! In Greenland and in Greece, in Rome and Egypt, Persia and India, men have persistently refused to believe the testimony of death; and wherever they raised a stone to chronicle a death, on that stone, by word or rude symbol, they recorded their undaunted faith in a life beyond the grave. Here then is a creed old as time, wide as the world, catholic as the race, native to every climate, and common to every religion.

2. Do not men’s mental powers point to another life? All but man reach their highest development here. Man dies with the best powers undeveloped. His great actions are only specimens, earnests of what he could do were not time too niggard of its days. We may see the possible progress by the actual achievement of man.

3. What is God to us—what are we to God? Man is a creature with strong longings for life, and apparently fitted for immortality. God is not playing with human life. He is our Father in heaven, and we are His children. And here is the ground of our faith: Man has a capacity for life; God a desire that we should live. Eternal life is the gift of eternal love.—J. M. Gibbon.

Heb_7:17. The Order of Melchizedek.—The references to Melchizedek are found in Gen_14:18-20; Psa_110:4. “Without descent” means without genealogy, such as Levitical priests had. “Without end of life” means that no limit of age attached to his office, as to that of Jewish priests. Observe the application of the argument of this chapter to the fact, that the Jewish religious system was a temporary one, that it had now done its work, and was decaying and passing.

I. The order of Melchizedek involves superiority to the Levitical order.—Abraham, the Jewish race-father, paid tithes to Melchizedek. The contrast was so pointed when the writer presented it, because then the Jewish system was evidently decaying. The Jews clung desperately to it, but nevertheless it was fast slipping out of their grasp.

1. The order of Melchizedek is antecedent to that of Aaron.

2. The order of Melchizedek is intercessory, not sacrificial.

3. The new priesthood, being spiritual and universal, must of necessity supplant that which is material and local.

II. The order of Melchizedek involves the direct appointment of God.—The Jewish priests came into office by regular succession from father to son, and no priest was ever able to claim direct Divine appointment. Both Melchizedek and Christ were specially called by God. Illustrate by the witness of the Divine voice at our Lord’s baptism.

III. The order of Melchizedek involves the perpetuity of priesthood.—There is no account of Melchizedek’s having died—no account of his priesthood’s ever closing. And Christ’s death was but the beginning of His spiritual and eternal life. “Abideth a priest for ever.”

IV. The order of Melchizedek involves the union of two offices, king and priest.—“King of righteousness.”

1. That—righteousness—is the end and object of his rule.

2. That—righteousness—is the characteristic of the peoples whom he rules. “King of peace”—which of necessity always attends upon the triumph of righteousness. “Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” They always do. Christ in the eternal temple is our King-priest. King of righteousness, which is for sinful humanity the essential condition of peace.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

II

The Old Testament itself predicts the abrogation of the Levitical high-priesthood which rests on the basis of the Mosaic law, and the merging of it in the eternal priesthood of the Messiah

Heb_7:11-19

11 If therefore [If indeed now, If to be sure now, εἰ, μὲν οὖν] perfection were by [=through, διά] the Levitical priesthood, (for under it [on the basis of it, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς]6 the people [have] received the law,) what further need was there [om. was there] that another [different, ἕτερον] priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed [transferred, μετατιθεμένης], there is made [becometh] of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of [from] which no man gave [none hath 14given] attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang [hath sprung] out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood [priests, ἱερέων].7 15And it is yet far more [is still more abundantly] evident, for that [if, εἰ] after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another [a different, ἕτερος] priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal8 commandment, but after the power of an endless 17[indestructible] life. For he testified [is testified of, μαρτυρεῖται]9 Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18For there is verily [there becometh indeed, γίνεται μέν] a disannulling of the [preceding] commandment going before [om. going before] for the [on account of its] weakness and unprofitableness thereof [om. thereof]; 19For the law made nothing perfect, but [(for the law perfected nothing), and] the bringing in of a better hope did [om. did], by which we draw nigh unto God.

[Heb_7:11.—εἰ μὲν οὖν, if to be sure now, if, indeed, therefore, οὖν, looking back and linking the proposition in a general way with the preceding; the μέν looking forward, and implying that the writer has in his mind some alternative sentiment to that which immediately follows, and which would naturally be introduced by δέ, but which may be, as here, suppressed. The words μέν οὖν, do not affect in the slightest degree the construction or meaning of εἰ with its verb. Alford absurdly translates: “If again” as “the nearest English expression to εἰ μὲν οὖν.” It could not well be more unfortunately rendered, unless possibly by yea if, by which Alford renders the same combination at Heb_8:4, while the rendering of μὲν γάρ, Heb_7:18 of Hebrews 7., by for moreover, is equally regardless of the meaning of the particles, and the demands of the context. In the present case the author passes (Heb_7:11) from a consideration of the personal greatness of Melchisedek,—a greatness guaranteeing, by implication, the greatness of the priesthood in which his should find its antitype—to the points of superiority of the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood.—ἐπ’ αὐτῆς, on the basis of it—νενομοθέτηται Perf. like δεδεκάτωται, Heb_7:9, have had their legislation, stand recorded as having received the law.—τίς ἔτι χρεία, what need any longer; ἔτι, logical here, not temporal.—ἓτερον ἱερέα, a different priest, not merely ἄλλον, another, numerically.

Heb_7:12.—μετατιθεμένης,while it is undergoing a change or transfer; not simply being changed=μετατεθείσης.

Heb_7:13.—ἐφ’ ὅν, upon, in relation to whom.—μετέσχηκεν, hath participated in, hath shared in (perf. not as Heb_2:14, μετέσχεν); Eng. ver., pertaineth to.—οὐδεὶς προσέσχηκεν, none hath given attendance.

Heb_7:14.—πρόδηλον γάρ, for it is conspicuously evident—ἀνατέταλκεν, hath sprung or risen, not sprang.—περὶ ἱερέων, concerning priests.

Heb_7:15.—περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστι, more abundantly still is it evident, κατάδηλος, intensive of δῆλος, and περισσότερον, stronger than the simple comparative of κατάδηλος.—εἰ, if=if it is the case that—and it is; Eng. ver., for that which gives the meaning.—ἀνίσταται, there ariseth.

Heb_7:16.—γέγονεν, hath become, viz, priest; Alford, is appointed; Eng. ver., is made.—ἀκαταλύτου, not exactly as Eng. ver., endless; but not to be dissolved, indissoluble, indestructible.

Heb_7:19.—Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελεί., for the law brought nothing to perfection, should be in parenthesis, and ἑπεισαγωγή, a bringing in upon, or in place of, coördinated with ἀθέτησις as subject of γίνεται, as shown clearly both by the μέν and δέ, and the much greater clearness and elegance of the construction; “there takes place an abrogation on the one hand—and an introduction thereupon ἐπί).” Ebr. follows the Eng. ver. in its erroneous construction. Alf. constructs the sentence otherwise correctly, but (misunderstanding apparently a statement of Hart. Pertikel. II. 414) regards μέν as here used elliptically, and pointing to an understood contrast in the permanence of the ζωή ἀκατάλ. just mentioned. “It is hardly possible, even with the right construction of the sentence, to regard this μέν as answering to the δέ following ἐπεισαγωγή; its connection with the γάρ will not allow this. If this had been intended we should have expected the form of the sentence to be ἀθέτησις γὰρ γίνεται τῆς μὲν προαγούσης ἐντολῆς.” No criticism could be more incorrect. There is not the slightest reason why μέν cannot stand with γάρ, and yet be followed by its corresponding δέ, unless it is impossible for a sentence to stand in the relation indicated by γάρ to a previous sentence, and yet itself be susceptible of a distribution of its members by μὲν and δέ. We have in fact just such a construction at Heb_7:20-21, and it is among the most natural and familiar in the language. And the construction proposed by Alf. as required in case the μέν and δέ here were in contrast, is totally wrong. The order of words which he has given would imply a contrast not between the abrogation of the preceding commandment and the introduction of a better hope, but a contrast between the abrogation of the preceding commandment on the one hand, and of something else on the other. The construction, as it stands, brings out, regularly and elegantly, the required antithesis. It might indeed have stood γίνεται γὰρ ἀθέτησις μὲν προαγούσης—ἐπεισαγ. δέ, and also in one or two other modes of arrangement; but no change is needed.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Heb_7:11. If, indeed, now perfection were, etc.—Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν is the genuine Greek construction for a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed.10 The οὖν does not refer back to Heb_6:20 (De Wette, Bisping). The γάρ in the parenthetical clause refers to the obvious but unexpressed thought that one might be inclined to assume that perfection was brought about through the Levitical priesthood, inasmuch as this stood in reality in organic connection with the Mosaic law. The supposition that the sentiment merely is that the people received legal ordinances regarding the priesthood (Schlicht., Grot., Bl.), is contradicted not merely by the utter superfluousness of such a remark, but chiefly by the fact that it is only with verbs of speaking that ἐπί with the Gen. stands in such a sense (Bernhady, Synt., p. 248). Many, as Seb. Schmidt, Rambach and others, have even explained it barely of rites and institutions pertaining to the τελείωσις. Clauses denoting necessity are commonly followed by the Inf. with μή (Hart. Partikellehre II. 125). When, however, the negation refers not to the entire sentence, but, as here, to an individual portion of it, οὐ also occurs (Madvig Gr. Synt., § 205; Kühn., § 214, Anm. 2). Luther makes λέγεσθαι depend on χρεία, and all that intervenes depend on λέγεσθαι. It is more easy and natural to make the two Infinitives, ἀνίστασθαι and λέγεσθαι coördinate with each other, and both dependent on χρεία. Ἕτερον emphasizes the diversity in kind.

Heb_7:12. For if the priesthood is undergoing a change, etc.—The γάρ refers not (as with Lün.) to the parenthetical clause, but introduces the first argument in support of the main idea of Heb_7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest, is incompatible with the assumption of the sufficiency and efficiency of the Levitical priesthood. Νόμος is neither to be restricted to the law of the priesthood (Bez., Grot., etc.), nor to the ceremonial law (Calv., à Lapide, Carpz., etc.). For although it is true that Heb_7:13 merely introduces the proof of the proposition of Heb_7:12, that the change of the law, there asserted as inseparable from the change of the priesthood, appears historically in the fact that the Old Covenant itself predicts the Melchisedek priest as a non-Aaronic and Levitical priest, while Heb_7:14 attaches to this the historical proof of the fulfilment of this prediction in the person of Jesus, and thus far the law spoken of might be the mere law of the priesthood; yet inasmuch as it has been previously stated that the Israelitish people had received their νόμον in organic connection with the institution of the priesthood, of course the change of law here referred to can by no means be regarded as a partial one. [Moll then regards Heb_7:13 as still lingering back in the realm of prophecy, and simply asserting that the person of whom the language of the prediction is uttered, viz., “thou art a priest,” etc., appears in the very fact of the prediction as belonging to another tribe, where none gave attendance at the altar; for if he was a Melchisedek priest, he could not be an Aaronic and Levitical priest, and therefore could not be of the tribe of Levi; and he then regards Heb_7:14 as coming down into the actual historical life of our Lord, and confirming the inference from prophecy by the well known testimony of fact. The main scope of the paragraph, he thinks, is to illustrate the cardinal idea of Heb_7:11, viz., that the institution of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ is incompatible with the supposition of the competence of the Levitical priesthood to accomplish its intended work of perfection. This is shown, first, by the fact that the Old Testament itself, as shown by the prediction of Psalms 110., contemplated a transfer of the Levitical priesthood to another tribe—a transfer actually realized in the person of Jesus (12–14). Secondly, by the essential difference in the character of the Melchisedek Priesthood of Christ (15–17)—K.]. Ταῦτα, Heb_7:14, refers to the words of the Psa_110:4. The Perfects μετέσχηκεν, προσέσχηκεν, ἀνατέταλκεν, point to the historical facts as now standing completed before the eye. Ἀφ’ ἦς denotes the springing forth from the φυλή. Προσέχειν τινι=to give one’s attention, or devote one’s activity to a thing. The reading προσέστηκε in Erasmus is a Patristic gloss. The πρό in πρόδηλον is not temporal (Pierce), but strengthens the conception of a thing as lying open or conspicuous by the facts, while κατάδηλον in like manner emphasizes the reasonings of Heb_7:15.

Heb_7:15. And it is still more abundantly evident, etc.—Ebrard entirely erroneously supposes that the thing here asserted to be evident is the fact of our Lord’s springing from Judah (Heb_7:14). Bisping, following Chrys. and others, supposes it to be the greatness of the difference between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. Klee, with Primas., Just., Rambach, etc., supposes it to be the reality of the change of the priesthood. Delitzsch, with J. Cappell. and Bengel, regards it as the inefficiency of the Levitical priesthood; while Bleek, De Wette, Thol., Lün., find in it the statement that the change of the priesthood involves the change of the law. But this statement itself served merely as the first proof of the capital thought contained in Heb_7:11, viz., that the appointment of a Melchisedek priest was incompatible with the efficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and was itself again substantiated by the fact of the actual occurrence of the change. The author now advances to the second proof of the same point, a proof in which is involved alike the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood, and the greatness of the distinction between the Levitical and the New Testament priesthood. In the previous argument the stress was laid on the circumstance that with the change of the priesthood stood actually and as matter of fact connected a change of the Mosaic law. It is now laid on the intrinsic idea and character of a Melchisedek priest. A Melchisedek priest, as such, is the subject of the clause. Had the author had in mind Jesus personally, he would have personally designated the subject, of which the predicate would then be the priest of a different character. The greater clearness of this proof, however, lies in the fact that His birth from a different Israelitish tribe does not so much constitute the Messiah a ἕτερος ἱερεύς as his “likeness” to Melchisedek. This not merely places him in another τάξις of Priests, but gives him a priesthood forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and such a priesthood can alone work τελείωσις, comp. Heb_7:25.

[The passage Heb_7:11-16 is, as indicated by the great diversity of opinions regarding it, while easy enough to translate, among the most difficult in the Epistle to analyze so as to assure us that we have the precise scope and drift of the author. Some, as Lönemann, regard Heb_7:12, with its ratiocinative γάρ, as simply illustrating the parenthetical clause of Heb_7:11, a view which at first glance seems probable. Others, as Bleek, De Wette, Delitzsch, regard it as paving the way for what follows, and “laying down the ground why, not, without urgent cause, the priesthood is changed” (De Wette), admitting at the same time that the parenthetical clause of Heb_7:11 has an important bearing on the illustration. Moll considers the capital thought which the whole passage is designed to illustrate, to be the incompatibility of the institution of the Melchisedek priesthood, with the idea of the sufficiency and competence of the Levitical priesthood. Equally, perhaps still more diverse, are the views regarding the reference of the κατάδηλον, Heb_7:15. Let us follow a little the course of thought. The author passes, at Heb_7:11, from illustrating the personal greatness of Melchisedek—involving by implication, the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron, and a fortiori the superiority of that of which his was but a type, to the Aaronic—to the consideration of the relative claims of the two priesthoods themselves, viz., the Levitical priesthood and the Melchisedek priesthood of Christ. The main ideas which he introduces, and which lie in the very nature and relations of the case, are the following: 1. That the Mosaic economy rested for its execution and effectiveness on the Levitical priesthood; the abrogation, therefore, of the latter involves an abrogation of the former. This abrogation he mildly calls a transfer. 2. That this abrogation of the priesthood and of its associated and superincumbent economy is already predicted in the Old Testament, (in the declaration of God, Thou art a priest forever, etc.), and that this prediction is actually realized in the well-known descent of Jesus Christ from the stock of Judah—a non-priestly tribe. 3. That the change of priesthood, and of course the superiority of the latter, consists even more in the internal character of the Melchisedek priesthood, as compared with the Levitical, than in the mere external fact of change. 4. That the oath which accompanied the inauguration of the Melchisedek priest marks its superiority. 5. That its superiority is also marked by its singleness, untransferableness, and perpetuity, in all which features it stands contrasted with the Levitical. These are the general ideas from Heb_7:11 to Heb_7:26, and it is only at two or three points, chiefly at Heb_7:12-13; Heb_7:15, that the difficulty is found in tracing the precise thread of connection. Without feeling over confident, I think it as nearly as follows:

If, indeed, now (the now οὖν, linking it in a general way with what precedes, the μέν pointing to the suppressed affirmation, contrasted with the supposition as; if, indeed it were, but it is not) perfection were by the Levitical priesthood—and that priesthood was bound to make the law effective, for the legislation of Moses was based upon it—there were no need for another priest to be spoken of in prophecy as about to arise after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron. And that such a change would not take place without urgent cause is evident, for see how far-reaching it is. For when the priesthood is transferred, as in the prediction of the Psalm it is, it carries with it a transfer and an abrogation of the Law. And that such a transfer is made is clear; for he in regard to whom the language of this prediction is uttered, belongs to another tribe, of which none has ministered at the altar;—(Delitzsch considers that in this verse (Heb_7:13) the author has already descended from the region of prophecy to that of fulfilment. Moll regards him as still standing on the ground of the prophecy, and simply stating what the prophecy implies regarding the birth and tribal relations of the predicted priest. In favor of Moll’s view is the indefinite ἐφ’ ο͂ν λέγεται ταῦτα; in favor of that of Delitzsch are the definite statements with the perfect tense of the verb, which seem to point to actual historical facts. I concur on the whole with Delitzsch; Alford scarcely touches the question).—For it is a well-known historical fact, that our Lord hath sprung from Judah, to which tribe appertains no regular priesthood. From this fact now it is evident that that change of priesthood has taken place which brings change of law, viz., the fact that the old priesthood belonged to a particular tribe, and that when it passes to another tribe, of course the Mosaic priesthood is subverted, and therefore the whole structure reared upon it falls to the ground; but it is still more abundantly evident from another fact, viz., the intrinsically different character of this new priesthood, in that this priest arises after the likeness of Melchisedek—having those properties which this likeness would presuppose—who hath been made, etc. From this point the course of thought is easy. I thus do not regard the course of thought as carried out with strict logical precision. The author shows how great consequences depend on the overthrow of the Levitical priesthood—no less consequences than the abrogation of the whole law that rests upon it—shows how this transfer is actually made in the person of Jesus, and how still more vital and deep-reaching than the mere transfer, is the change in the intrinsic character of the Melchisedek priesthood itself. Here he has, as it were, drifted into the topic of the superiority of Christ’s Melchisedek priesthood to the Aaronic, which he then farther illustrates by the matter of the oath, and the singleness and perpetuity of the Melchisedek priest as against the plurality and transitoriness of the Levitical priests.—K.].

Heb_7:16. Who has been made not after the law, etc.—By νόμος here Chrys., Calv., Beng., Böhme, Thol., and others, understand the Mosaic law, whose elements are collectively designated as a fleshly institution. But the expression κατὰ νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης in antithesis to κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, requires certainly that we take νόμος as at Rom_7:21; Rom_7:23 in the sense of norm. We are not, however, to infer from this that ἐντολὴ σαρκίνη is the special requisition of the Mosaic law regarding the Levitical priesthood (Lün.), and is so designated because it lays stress merely on outward, earthly things, which are liable to destruction, as on lineal descent, etc., and installs only mortal men as priests (Theod., Grot., Bl., De Wette, etc.). Still less may we appeal to the fact that in later Greek the distinction between adj. ending in ικός and ινος is done away (Winer, Thol., etc.). For no New Testament writer could characterize the Mosaic law, whether taken as a whole or in any of its ordinances, as fleshly, inasmuch as they are collectively to be referred back to the will of God, and for this reason Paul expressly emphasizes the spiritual nature alike of the νόμος and of the ἐντολή, Rom_7:12; Rom_7:14. Doubtless, indeed, the signification of perishableness, which Beng., Carpz., etc., have found in σαρκικός, is possible for σάρκινος (=made of flesh). Still I should prefer to refer the epithet to the qualities of externality, frailty and impotence, which belong to the nature of the σάρξ, and which are also at the same time predicated of the ritual and statutory character of the Mosaic law. It is this property of the law which I conceive to be expressed by ἐντολὴ σαρκίνη. To this corresponds the fact that it is not placed in contrast directly with the historic Jesus but with the ἔτερος ἱερεύς, which finds its realization in Him, whose characteristic, as shown by Heb_7:18, is drawn from the words of the Psalm. Any reference to the capacity of Christ to impart life to others (as supposed by Cam., Dorsch., Calov, etc.), is not for a moment to be assumed. As previously κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχ. was explained by κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα M., so here εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is explained by κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς άκαταλύτου. The language then has not reference to the incarnation of Christ the Messiah, but to His appointment as Melchisedek priest in the presence of God, in the completeness and perfection of His personal life. He is also the subject of μαρτυρεῖται [so Alf.], which Bleek and others take impersonally. Ὅτι is the ὅτι of citation as Heb_10:8; Heb_11:18.

Heb_7:18. For there becometh a doing away, etc.—The author is showing that the thought expressed in Heb_7:15-16 is contained in the passage of the Psalm. To this passage points the Pres. γίνεται, which belongs to the two clauses that are separated by the parenthesis. Some interpreters remove the parenthesis, erroneously and make Heb_7:19 an independent sentence, either making ἐπεισαγωγή a predicate to ὁ νόμος, and supplying ἐστίν or ἦν (Erasm., Calv., Ebr., etc.), or making ἐπεισαγωγή subject and repeating ἐτελείωσεν (as Beza, Grot., E. Ver.). In the former case the meaning would be: “but the law is indeed, or was, an introduction to a better hope:” in the second case: “but the ἐπεισαγωγή, etc., did bring in perfection.” The latter construction would demand the article before ἐπεισαγ. as before νόμος, indicating the subject. The former is opposed alike by the fact that the μὲν γάρ without the corresponding δέ is not=namely, but only=for to be sure, for at least, (Hart. Partik. II., 414), which is here entirely out of place, and that ἐπεισαγωγή is not=εἰσαγωγή, but denotes the introduction of something either as added to an object already existing, or as a substitute for it. This object is here προάγουσα ἐντολή, whose meaning is determined by the connection, for which reason the absence of the article does not require that the clause be taken as a general one (Schlicht., De Wette), while the use of ἐντολή as substantially equivalent to the Mosaic νόμος, would be adverse to it, (Primas., Chrys., Theod., Calv., Grot., etc.). The thought contained in the parenthesis (so rightly at first constructed by Luther, and erroneously changed in his later version), is weakened by changing the neut. οὐδέν into the masc. οὐδένα, (Chrys., Schlicht., Grot., Carpz., Bisp., etc.).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

From this passage Chr. Ferd. Baur takes occasion (“Christianity and the Church of the three first centuries,” p. 99), to maintain that our author holds an essentially different position from Paul, saying, “To the Apostle Paul Judaism is essentially law, while in the law again appears only its negative relation to Christianity. To the author of the Hebrews, Judaism is essentially a priesthood. The priesthood is with him the primary thing, and the starting point of his entire discussion; the law is but secondary. The latter must regulate itself by the former.” It is only when torn from its connection that our passage can be so explained. It points rather to the historically known fact, that the Mosaic law, through which the Israelites in general were constituted a people, and especially a people of God, was given to them with direct reference to, and on condition of the ministry of the priesthood, which, in its establishment and functions, stood indissolubly connected with it. From this, then, could the conclusion be drawn, that the change of so essential an institution as the priesthood would include and draw after it the change of the law itself. If then, farther, as an historical fact it must be acknowledged, that in the Old Testament itself, by the divine word of prophecy, this change of the priesthood is announced as one designed by God, and with certainty to be introduced through the Messiah, there could be drawn the farther conclusion that the whole law and the legal covenant relation in general, has, in the plan of God himself, only a transitory, and as elsewhere indicated, disciplinary significance. The fact was thus demonstrated, that in the establishment of the Law, and of its institutions, God did not promise and pledge within the covenant of the law itself, and within its means of grace, the attainment of the demanded and designed perfection. Rather this perfection must and can be attained by other means of grace, which are in like manner announced by God, and have been already introduced.

2. The Law can, as the verbal expression of the Divine will, only describe perfection; it cannot exhibit it personally. It can further, as the command of God to His people, only demand from them human perfection, but not create it in them. Finally, as the law of the holy God, it cannot overlook the universal lack of perfection, nor leave those whose duty binds them to this perfection, exempt from punishment. It must rather judge the sin everywhere disclosed by it, and, since all men prove themselves to be sinners, can only condemn and not acquit. This is the imperfection and the weakness—this incapacity to produce perfection—which lies in the nature of law as such, and of course also in the law of God; comp. Rom_8:3; Gal_4:9, where Paul calls the law τὰ ἀσθενῆ καί πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα.

3. Should, with this condition of things, a positive covenant relation between God and His people, bound solemnly to the law, be possible, this could only take place by instituting an expiation, upon the foundation of which rests a reconciliation for the forgiveness of sin, and the introduction of the spiritual peace and blessing, which we so deeply need. But since man as a sinner is incapacitated for it, his only hope rests upon the Divine interposition in providing such an expiation.

4. This divinely originated plan is not merely promised by the word of prophecy, but was immediately, by a system of legal arrangements, by the institution of the Levitical priesthood, at once prepared for and prefigured. So far was it from lying within the divine purpose to introduce perfection by this institution, that on the one hand its typical and symbolical character was made clearly manifest, and on the other its transitory nature and import were expressly declared by the direct prediction of a priesthood of another character in the Old Testament itself, where the Messiah is purposely represented not merely as a priest-king, but also as not an Aaronic, but a Melchisedek Priest.

5. It is true that Christ is also the antitype of the high-priest Aaron; yet only in so far as His death on the cross, which wrought an eternal redemption, is compared with the annual expiatory sacrifice, which only the high-priest, after first making expiation for himself, was permitted to offer. But in respect, on the other hand, to the origin and dignity of the Son, who, forever perfected, sits enthroned at the right hand of the Father; in respect to that ministry of intercession and of blessing, which gives perpetual efficacy in heaven to the sacrifice which once for all was offered upon earth,—in respect to these He is the counterpart of the Priestly King Melchisedek.

6. In this relation Christ exercises forever His mediatorial function, because in His person He possesses an indestructible life. He is Priest, not in consequence of any commandment, or on the ground of any priestly descent, but in virtue of His personality, which renders Him the bearer of an eternal and untransferable priesthood, on the ground of His offering of Himself on the cross, and in consequence of the position which He assumes as the Risen, eternally living God-man, exalted above all heavens to the throne of God.

7. The origin of Jesus from the tribe of Judah (Rev_5:5), through His descent from the house of David (Act_2:30; Rom_1:3; 2Ti_2:8), which is, on the one hand, like the rising of a star, Num_24:17, or of light from on high, Isa_60:1; Mal. 3:20; Luk_1:78; on the other, like the sprouting branch, Isa_4:2; Jer_23:5; Jer_33:15; Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12, shows that the priesthood of Jesus is not the Levitico-Aaronical, but the Melchisedek priesthood; that thus the change predicted in the Old Testament has already historically taken place, and with this the abrogation of the Mosaic law received its authorized beginning. In this connection the remark of the author that this birth of Jesus from Judah is a perfectly well-known fact, so that he can make of it as of an unquestionable foundation, the most decided use in addressing his readers, is of great historical importance, especially in view of the circumstance that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

8. In the old covenant the Levitical priests were the mediators between God and the people; they had the honorable appellation of “those who draw near to Jehovah,” Num_10:3. Since Christ entered on His office as the only and eternal mediator, the whole people of God have received the appellation of a royal priesthood; a free access to the Father has been opened to all believers, and the realization of a better hope has commenced, which in the Old Testament prophecy came from the Melchisedek priest to the law, and passed over, out of and beyond it.

9. Also the hope of the believers of the Old Covenant was not directed merely to earthly goods, to long life and possession of the promised land, to security from enemies, and to dominion over unbelievers. The hope of a future life was according to Heb_11:10; Heb_11:13-14 by no means wanting to the Patriarchs, and the Messianic hope gave them not only a concrete subject matter of their hope, but led also to better means for perfection than the legal institutions could furnish.

10. The idea of perfection embraces all points and elements in that state of perfectness in which the Divinely appointed goal is reached, to which Christ was led by sufferings (Heb_2:10), and to which man (Heb_10:1) can attain only through this ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας on the ground of the sacrifice of this New Test. high-priest (Heb_10:14). But this state is not with Reuss (Hist. de la Theol. II., 551) to be limited to subjective and moral perfection. It rather has only its beginning in the purification which appertains to the conscience, Heb_9:7; its progress in that drawing near to God (Heb_7:19), in which the outward objective principle of sanctification described in Heb_10:14, now proves itself actually efficacious; and its conclusion in eternal life, primarily in the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb_12:23, then after the resurrection, in their participation in glory, Heb_11:40.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The likeness and unlikeness of Christ to the priests of the law.—Wherein consists the strength, and wherein the weakness of the law?—The hope, by which we draw near to God, as already foretold in the Old Testament, by means of the old covenant, however, was not to be realized.—God changes not His plan, but does change sometimes the means of its accomplishment.—The glorious harmony of prophecy and history in the person of Jesus Christ.—How do law and Gospel stand related to each other?—The hope to which we are called: a. as to its substance; b. as to its foundation; c. as to its nurture.—Christ, a priest of a different kind from all other priests whatsoever.—Christ at once God and man, Priest and King, subject to the law, and free from its statutory observance.—The mutual relation of law and priesthood.

Starke:—The Old Testament, as one which in itself was much too weak, must necessarily be changed, and through the New Testament, a better hope be brought in, through the efficacious sacrifice and intercession of Jesus Christ, as the perfect high-priest, who alone gives us salvation. The Levitical Priesthood is fulfilled through the Messianic, and thereby has been done away.—The holy and wise God has in His word set forth, for the good of men, the mystery of Christ, in manifold ways, with so many reasons, of which some are at once clearer and more binding than others.—What the prophets have predicted of Christ so many hundred years ago, has been in Him so exactly fulfilled. Who sees not also in this, the divinity of the Holy Scriptures?—While all believing Christians are permitted to draw near to God in Christ, they are also all spiritual priests, whose dignity and office it is to offer themselves in sacrifice to God, (Rom_12:1; 1Pe_2:5; 1Pe_2:9) as those who are animated with the Spirit of Christ, and adorned with the white priestly garment of righteousness, Isa_61:10.—Blessed is he who from time to time draws near in faith to Christ, and in Christ unto God, and makes his whole life nothing else than, as it were, a perpetual going out from himself and the world, and going in unto God, Jam_4:8.—He who, while he lives on earth, draws not near to God, in faith and prayer, will not come to God after death, Heb_4:16; Rom_5:1-2.

Hahn:—As Priest, Christ assists from within; creates an internal atmosphere, gives freedom and joy. As King, He aids also from without, and removes everything which can hinder the inner life of His people, and brings to naught the assaults of their foes.

Rieger:—From the fact that another Priest was to appear, was to be inferred an entire change in the economy of God.

Heubner:—The present religion of the Jews is an exceedingly defective Judaism. They admit some of its elements, while what is most important in it, they are utterly unable to carry out.—All mysteries, orders, societies, which claim equal or even superior rank to the Church of Christ, are a sin against the high-priestly dignity of Christ.

Stein:—Christianity is by so much the more perfect covenant, in that the covenant of God in the Old Testament, merely introduced, prepared for, and prefigured it; in that it then removes imperfections which the former was not able to remove; and finally, in that there are also blessed prospects for the future, which indicate Christianity as the more perfect covenant.

Footnotes:

[6]Heb_7:11.—Instead of ἐπ’ αὐτῇ, read after Sin. A. B. C. D*. E*. 17, 31, 46, ἐπ’ αὐτῆς; and instead of the Pluperf. νενομοθέτητο, read after Sin. A. B. C. D*., 17, 47, 73, νενομοθέτηται.

[7]Heb_7:14.—Instead of οὐδὲν περὶ ἱερωσύνης, read after A. B. C*. D*. E., 17, 47, περὶ ἱερέων οὐδέν. So also in Sin., excepting that there οὐδέν stood originally after Μωυσης, and has been placed before it by a later hand.

[8]Heb_7:16.—Instead of σαρκικῆς, read with Sin. A. B. C. D*. L., σαρκίνης.

[9]Heb_7:17.—Instead of μαρτυρεῖ, should be read with Sin. A. B. D*. E., 17, 31, μαρτυρεῖται.

[10][The μὲν οὖν has nothing whatever to do with the character of the hypothetical construction. The words simply indicate, the one (οὖν) its logical relation to that which precedes, and the other (μέν) its connection with that which follows. The εἰ ἦν (all that belongs intrinsically to the construction) is indeed genuine Greek, for the protasis of a hypothetical proposition which denies the reality of the case supposed, but so it is equally for that of one which admits it. All turns upon the character of the apodosis. If the apodosis be an Indicative past with ἄν, the proposition denies; if any Ind. tense Without ἄν, it admits. Thus εἰ ἦν τελείωσις, χρεία οὐκ ἂν ἦν would be; if there were perfection, there would not be need, but there was, or is, not. Εἰ τελείωσις ἦν, χρεία οὐκ ἦν would be: if there was perfection there was no need—and there was perfection.—K].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7:11-28 Having argued for Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levites (7:1-10), the author now argues that Jesus, our high priest like Melchizedek, is also superior to the Levitical priests of the old covenant.

7:11 Perfection in Hebrews does not mean flawless, but reaching a desired goal (see study note on 5:9). The priesthood under the old covenant could not achieve all that God intended for a covenant relationship with his people. That is why God needed to establish a different priesthood.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 7:11. Εἰ μὲν οὖν, if then) Now, the apostle, by referring to the 110th Psalm, shows that the Levitical priesthood yields to the priesthood of Jesus Christ: because Melchisedec, according to whose order and likeness Jesus Christ is a priest, (1.) is opposed to Aaron, Heb 7:11-14; (2.) has no end of life, Heb 7:15-19.—τελείωσις, perfection) The LXX. put this word for the Hebrew מִלֻּאִים, Exo 29:22, etc.; Lev 7:37; Lev 8:22; Lev 8:28-29; Lev 8:31; Lev 8:33, where the writer is treating of Levitical perfection; but here τελείωσις τελεία, absolute perfection, is intended: comp. Heb 7:19. The article is not added, and therefore Paul increases the force of the negative expression.—ἦν) if—were. So ἦν, ch. Heb 8:7.—ὁ λαὸς γὰρ, for the people) The conjunction γὰρ put after the noun, as in Heb 7:28, intimates that the noun people is here emphatic the whole people of GOD. It at the same time shows why any one might perhaps ascribe perfection to the Levitical priesthood, and why it is necessary that that opinion should be confuted: comp. γὰρ, for, which is likewise subjoined to the word εἰ, if, ch. Heb 8:7-8.—ἐπʼ αὐτῇ, under, or in connection with it) Under the Levitical priesthood. Ἐπὶ with the dative, on, upon, concerning, in the case of, etc., often denotes the object, and that too having the force either of cause or effect, ch. Heb 8:1; Heb 8:6, Heb 9:10; Heb 9:17, Heb 11:4.—νενομοθέτητο, had received the law) The Pluperfect, because a time intervened before the 110th Psalm was given. As הורה is νόμος, the law, Heb 7:12, so the LXX. translate the verb הורה νομοθετεῖν τινα, to instruct any one: Psa 25:8; Psa 27:11; Psa 119:33; Psa 119:102. The people were only instructed about the Levitical priesthood, with which the whole law is occupied, and speaks of no other priesthood, Heb 7:5; but the 110th Psalm introduces a different system of instruction, namely, because God has changed the priesthood.—τίς ἔτι, what any longer now) This now any longer is very urgent.—χρεία, necessity) for GOD does nothing in vain.—ἕτερον, another) Comp. the epithets, new, second, ch. Heb 8:13, Heb 10:9.—ἀνίστασθαι) should arise anew, Heb 7:15. The antithesis is λέγεσθαι, should be called, according to the old form of instruction.—λέγεσθαι, should not be called) in the psalm, at the time of which Aaron, i.e. the order of Aaron, flourished.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_7:11. From the inferiority of the Levitical priesthood to the priesthood of Melchisedec, just proved, it followed that the former was imperfect and incapable of leading to perfection. This fact is now presupposed by the author as a self-evident consequence, and he proceeds at once to demonstrate the truth thereof.

οὖν] deduces the conclusion from Heb_7:5-10, not from Heb_6:20 (de Wette, Bisping), whereby an interruption ensues in the continuity of the development begun by the author.

εἰ] with the indicative preterite (Heb_4:8, Heb_8:4), supposition of an impossible case: if there were, if there existed; in combination with διά: if it were effected.

τελείωσις] perfection, i.e. attainment of the highest goal of mankind in a moral and religious respect. There is included in it the obtaining of the expiation of sins and the glory to come. Comp. Heb_9:9, Heb_10:1; Heb_10:14, Heb_11:40.

ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται] for the people on the ground thereof hath received the law. These words can be taken only as a parenthesis (against Stein). νομοθετεῖν τινί signifies to give laws to one, to provide one with a law (here the Mosaic law). The mode of transposing this active construction into the passive ὁ λαὸς νενομοθέτηται is quite the usual one; comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 244 f.

ἐπʼ αὐτῆς] relates not to τελείωσις (so, upon the supposition of the reading ἐπʼ αὐτῇ, Vatablus, but undecided; Seb. Schmidt, Starck, Rambach), but to τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνς. ἐπί, however, denotes: upon the ground or condition of the existence of the Levitical priesthood, i.e. the Levitical priesthood is indissolubly conjoined with the Mosaic law which the people has received; it forms a foundation pillar upon which the latter rests, so that with the fall of the one the other also must fall (Heb_7:12). Erroneously,because the statement thus arising would be too insignificant, and because ἐπί in this sense is used only with verba dicendi (comp. Gal_3:16; Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 248),

Schlichting and Grotius [as also Whitby]: de sacerdotio Levitico legem accepit [an interpretation already rejected by Junius and Piscator]; as likewise Bleek I.: the people had received legal instruction concerning the Levitical priesthood.

But to what end the parenthesis? Its design is to indicate the ground on which one might expect to attain to the τελείωσις,if the Mosaic law were at all capable of leading thereto,by the intervention of the Levitical priesthood, since the Mosaic law is erected upon this very Levitical priesthood as its basis.

τίς ἔτι χρεία] sc. ἧν, or ἂν ἦν. The words following χρεία are not to be blended together into one thought (Faber Stapulensis, Luther, Baumgarten, Chr. Fr. Schmid), in such wise that λέγεσθαι is governed immediately by χρεία, and again all the rest (κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών) by λέγεσθαι. The position of the words would then be contorted, and one explicable on no justifying grounds. On the contrary, the infinitive clause κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα depends at once upon the immediately preceding τίς ἔτι χρεία; and to this first infinitive clause the second καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι forms an epexegetic parallel clause: What need was there still then (or: would there then still have been) that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called (priest) after the order of Aaron?

ἔτι] sc. after the Levitical priesthood had long been instituted, and in general the Mosaic law promulgated.

ἕτερον] in distinction from ἄλλον, brings prominently forward the dissimilarity of his nature and constitution as compared with that of the Levitical priests.

To καί we have not to supplement the whole idea ἔτερον ἱερέα, but only ἱερέα.

οὐ, however, is placed, not μή as the infinitive λέγεσθαι might seem to require, because the negation extends to only a part of the clause. οὐ, namely, is closely associated with κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών, and forms with the same merely a more precise definition to the ἱερέα which is to be supplied, so that the total expression καὶ (ἱερέα) οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών presents an opposition to the foregoing total expression κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἱερέα.

λέγεσθαι] namely, Psa_110:4. That λέγεσθαι is not to be taken in the sense of eligi (Kuinoel, Stein, al.) is already shown by the λέγεται, Heb_7:13.

Heb_7:11-17. The Levitical priesthood in general has, together with the Mosaic law, lost its validity.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 7:11-14 . The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and by implication of the whole Mosaic system, proved by the necessity of having a priest of another order.

Heb 7:11 . εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις .… “If then there was [or had been] perfecting by means of the Levitical priesthood for upon it [as a basis] the people have received the law what further need was there [or would have been] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedek and be styled not after the order of Aaron?” εἰ μὲν οὖν introduces a statement of some of the consequences resulting from the introduction of a priest of another order. It argues the failure of the Levitical priesthood to achieve τελείωσις . “ Perfection is always a relative word. An institution brings perfection when it effects the purpose for which it was instituted, and produces a result that corresponds to the idea of it. The design of a priesthood is to bring men near to God (Heb 7:19 ), and this it effects by removing the obstacle in the way, viz . men’s sin, which lying on their conscience impedes their free access to God; compare Heb 9:9 , Heb 10:1 ; Heb 10:14 ” (Davidson). On the rendering of ἦν see Sonnenschein’s Greek Gram. , 355, Obs. 3. ὁλαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται , the omitted clause is “and we are justified in demanding perfectness from the priesthood,” because it is the soul of the entire legislation. All the arrangements of the law, the entire administration of the people, involves the priesthood. If there is failure in the priestly service, the whole system breaks down. It was idle to give a law without providing at the same time for the expiation of its breaches. The covenant was at the first entered into by sacrifice, and could only be maintained by a renewal of sacrifice. The priesthood stood out as the essential part of the Jewish economy. νομοθετεῖν to be a νομοθέτης used in classics sometimes with dative of person, as in LXX, Exo 24:12 , τὰς ἐντολὰς ἅς ἒγραψα νομοθετῆσαι αὐτοῖς . Sometimes it is followed by accusative of that which is ordained by law. The use of the passive here is peculiar, cf. also Heb 8:6 . The νόμος contained in the word, and expressed separately in Heb 7:12 , is not the bare law contained in commandments, but the whole Mosaic dispensation. τίς ἔτι χρεία , this use of ἔτι is justified by an instance from Sextus Empiricus quoted by Wetstein: τίς ἔτι χρεία ἀποδεικνύναι αὐτά ; ἓτερον , not ἄλλον but another of a different kind. ἀνίστασθαι so Act 7:18 , ἀνέστη βασιλεὺς ἕτερος and cf. the transitive use in Act 2:24 ; Act 2:32 ; Act 3:22 ; Act 3:26 ; Act 7:37 . καὶ οὐ … λέγεσθαι . The negative belongs rather to the description κ . τ . τάξιν Ἀ . than to the verb and Burton’s rule (481) applies. “When a limitation of an infinitive or of its subject is to be negatived rather than the infinitive itself, the negative οὐ is sometimes used instead of μή .” λέγεσθαι “be spoken of” or “designated”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If the priesthood of Levi could have made any man perfect.

The third treatise of this Epistle, wherein after he hath proved Christ to be a King, a Prophet, and a Priest, he now handleth distinctly the condition and excellency of all these offices, showing that all these were but shadows in all other, but in Christ they are true and perfect. And he beginneth with the Priesthood, wherewith also the former treatise ended, that by this means all the parts and members of this disputation, may better hang together. And first of all he proveth that the Levitical Priesthood was imperfect because another Priest is promised a long time after according to another order, that is to say, of another manner of rule and fashion.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

perfection--absolute: "the bringing of man to his highest state, namely, that of salvation and sanctification."

under it--The reading in the oldest manuscripts is, "Upon it (that is, on the ground of it as the basis, the priest having to administer the law, Mal 2:7 : it being presupposed) the people (Heb 9:19, 'all the people') have received the law (the Greek is perfect, not aorist tense; implying the people were still observing the law)."

what further need-- (Heb 8:7). For God does nothing needless.

another--rather as Greek, "that a different priest (one of a different order) should arise (anew, Heb 7:15).

not be called--Greek, "not be said (to be) after the order of Aaron," that is, that, when spoken of in the Psa 110:4, "He is not said to be (as we should expect, if the Aaronic priesthood was perfect) after the order of Aaron."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood] The word τελειωσις, as we have before seen, signifies the completing or finishing of any thing, so as to leave nothing imperfect, and nothing wanting. Applied here to the Levitical priesthood, it signifies the accomplishment of that for which a priesthood is established, viz.: giving the Deity an acceptable service, enlightening and instructing the people, pardoning all offences, purging the conscience from guilt, purifying the soul and preparing it for heaven, and regulating the conduct of the people according to the precepts of the moral law. This perfection never came, and never could come, by the Levitical law; it was the shadow of good things to come, but was not the substance. It represented a perfect system, but was imperfect in itself. It showed that there was guilt, and that there was an absolute need for a sacrificial offering to atone for sin, and it typified that sacrifice; but every sacrificial act under that law most forcibly proved that it was impossible for the blood of BULLS and GOATS to take away sin.

For under it the people received the law] That is, as most interpret this place, under the priesthood, ιερωσυνη being understood; because, on the priesthood the whole Mosaical law and the Jewish economy depended: but it is much better to understand επαυτη on account of it, instead of under it; for it is a positive fact that the law was given before any priesthood was established, for Aaron and his sons were not called nor separated to this office till Moses came down the second time from the mount with the tables renewed, after that he had broken them, Ex 40:12-14. But it was in reference to the great sacrificial system that the law was given, and on that law the priesthood was established; for, why was a priesthood necessary, but because that law was broken and must be fulfilled?

That another priest should rise] The law was given that the offence might abound, and sin appear exceeding sinful; and to show the absolute necessity of the sacrifice and mediation of the great Messiah, but it was neither perfect in itself, nor could it confer perfection, nor did it contain the original priesthood. Melchisedec had a priesthood more than four hundred years (422) before the law was given; and David prophesied, Ps 110:4, that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, nearly five hundred years (476) after the law was given. The law, therefore, did not contain the original priesthood; this existed typically in Melchisedec, and really in Jesus Christ.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. If therefore perfection, or, moreover if perfection, etc. From the same testimony the Apostle concludes, that the old covenant was abrogated by the coming of Christ. He has hitherto spoken of the office and person of the priest; but as God had instituted a priesthood for the purpose of ratifying the Law, the former being abolished, the latter necessarily ceases. That this may be better understood, we must bear in mind the general truth, — That no covenant between God and man is in force and ratified, except it rests on a priesthood. Hence the Apostle says, that the Law was introduced among the ancient people under the Levitical priesthood; by which he intimates, that it not only prevailed during the time of the Law, but that it was instituted, as we have said for the sake of confirming the Law.

He now reasons thus, If the ministry of the Church was perfect under the order of Aaron, why was it necessary to return to another order? For in perfection nothing can be changed. It then follows, that the ministry of the Law was not perfect, for that new order was to be introduced of which David speaks.

For under it the people received the Law, etc. This parenthesis is inserted in order that we may know that the Law was annexed to the priesthood. The Apostle had in view to prove that in the Law of Moses there was no ultimate end at which we ought to stop. This he proves by the abrogation of the priesthoods and in this way: Had the authority of the ancient priesthood been such as to be sufficient fully to establish the Law, God would have never introduced in its place another and a different priesthood. Now, as some might doubt whether the abolition of the Law followed the abolition of the priesthood, he says that the Law was not only brought in under it, but that it was also by it established.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(11) The connection of thought may be given thus:—It has been shown that the position of Melchizedek towards Abraham involves of necessity his superiority to Abraham, to Levi also and his descendants, so that “the order of Melchizedek” is altogether different from, and higher than, “the order of Aaron.” This being so, how could this other priesthood take the place of the Levitical if this latter had answered its full purpose?

Perfection.—Literally, the making perfect—the full accomplishment of the essential aim of priesthood, in bringing men “near to God.”

Received.—The better reading is hath received.—The object of this parenthesis is to point out the intimate relation between the Law and the priesthood: “I speak of the Levitical priesthood, for it is on the basis of this that the Law given to the people rests.”

Another priest.—That is (as the Greek implies), a priest of a different kind (Heb_7:13; Heb_7:15). The question is equivalent to a strong denial: there could be no such need.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood] At this point begins the argument which occupies the next nine verses. “Perfection” (compare the verb in Heb_9:9, Heb_10:1; Heb_10:14, Heb_11:40) means power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view; but this was not to be attained through the Levitic priesthood. The fifth point of superiority is that the Melchisedek Priesthood implies the abrogation of the Levitic, and of the whole law which was based upon it.

for under it] Rather, “for on the basis of it.” The writer regards the Priesthood rather than the Law as constituting the basis of the whole Mosaic system; so that into this slight parenthesis he really infuses the essence of his argument. The Priesthood is obviously changed. For otherwise the Theocratic King of Psalms 110 would not have been called “a Priest after the order of Melchisedec” but “after the order of Aaron” Clearly then “the order of Aaron” admitted of no attainment of perfection through its means. But if the Priesthood was thus condemned as imperfect and inefficient, the Law was equally disparaged as a transitory institution. Righteousness did not “come by the Law;” if it could so have come Christ would have died in vain (Gal_2:21. Comp. Heb_10:1-14).

what further need was there] There could be no need, since none of God’s actions or dispensations are superfluous.

another priest] Rather, “a different priest”

and not be called after the order of Aaron] Lit., “and that he should not be said (viz. in Psa_110:4) to be after the order of Aaron.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For the priesthood being changed,.... Not translated from one tribe, family, or order, to another, but utterly abolished; for though it is called an everlasting priesthood, yet that is to be understood with a limitation, as the word "everlasting" often is, as relating to things under that dispensation; for nothing is more certain than that it is done away: it was of right abrogated at the death of Christ, and it is now in fact; since the destruction of Jerusalem, the daily sacrifice has ceased, and the children of Israel have been many days without one, and without an ephod. And the Jews themselves own, that the high priesthood was to cease in time to come (m), and which they say Azariah the son of Oded prophesied of in Ch2 15:3.

There is made of necessity a change also of the law; not the moral law, that was in being before the priesthood of Aaron, nor do they stand and fall together; besides, this still remains, for it is perfect, and cannot be made void by any other; nor is it set aside by Christ's priesthood: though there is a sense in which it is abolished; as it is in the hands of Moses; as it is a covenant of works; as to justification by it; and as to its curse and condemnation to them that are Christ's; yet it still remains in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation; and is useful, and continues so on many accounts: but either the judicial law; not that part of it which is founded on justice and equity, and was a means of guarding the moral law, for that still subsists; but that which was given to the Jews as Jews, and some parts of which depended on the priesthood, and so ceased with it; as the laws concerning the cities of refuge, raising up seed to a deceased brother, preserving inheritances in families, and judging and determining controversies: or rather the ceremonial law, which was but a shadow of good things to come, and was given but for a time; and this concerned the priesthood, and was made void by the priesthood of Christ; for that putting an end to the Levitical priesthood, the law which related to it must unavoidably cease, and become of no effect. This the Jews most strongly deny; God, they (n) say, will not change nor alter the law of Moses for ever. The nineth article of their creed, as drawn up by Maimonides, runs thus (o);

"I believe with a perfect faith that this law "shall not be changed", nor shall there be another law from the Creator, blessed be his name.''

But the reasoning of the apostle is strong and unanswerable.

(m) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 160. 4. (n) Seder Tephillot, Ed. Amsterd. fol. 2. 1. (o) Apud Seder Tephillot, Ed. Basil. fol. 86. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Ver. 11. If therefore perfection] i.e. Justification, sanctification, salvation.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - As the Jews supposed. They were accustomed to regard the system as perfect. It was an appointment of God, and they were tenacious of the opinion that it was to be permanent, and that it needed no change. But Paul says that this could not be. Even from their own Scriptures it was apparent that a priest was to arise of another order, and of a more permanent character, and this he says was full proof: that there was defect of some kind in the previous order. What this defect was, he does not here specify, but the subsequent reasoning shows that it was in such points as these - that it was not permanent; that it could not make the worshippers perfect; that the blood which they offered in sacrifice could not take away sin, and could not render those who offered it holy; compare Heb 7:19, Heb 7:23-24; Heb 10:1-4.

For under it the people received the law - This assertion seems necessary in order to establish the point maintained in Heb 7:12, that if the priesthood is changed there must be also a change of the Law. In order to this, it was necessary to admit that the Law was received under that economy, and that “it was a part of it,” so that the change of one involved also the change of the other. It was not strictly true that the whole Law was given after the various orders of Levitical priest were established - for the Law on Sinai, and several other laws, were given before that distinct arrangement was made; but it was true:

(1)That a considerable part of the laws of Moses were given under that arrangement; and,

(2)That the whole of the ceremonial observances was connected with that. They were parts of one system, and mutually dependent on each other. This is all that the argument demands.

What further need was there ... - “If that system would lead to perfection; if it was sufficient to make the conscience pure, and to remove sin, then there was no necessity of any other. Yet the Scriptures have declared that there “would be” another of a different order, implying that there was some defect in the former.” This reasoning is founded on the fact that there was an express prediction of the coming of a priest of a different “order” Psa 110:4, and that this fact implied that there was some deficiency in the former arrangement. To this reasoning it is impossible to conceive that there can be any objection.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood: now the Spirit infers from the doctrine of Melchisedec’s priesthood, the dignity and perpetuity of Christ’s, typified by it: so that it is not Aaron’s priesthood, but Christ’s, which the Hebrews were to use for their salvation after Aaron’s was expired. For perfection was not to be had by Aaron’s priesthood or law, but by a better, of another order, even Christ and his law. The form of these words are interrogative, implying a vehement denial of what is queried in them. A perfecting of persons to life eternal by expiation, justification, renovation, &c.; see Heb 9:9; 10:1; freeing sinners from the guilt, stain, filth, and consequents of their sins by an expiatory, satisfactory sacrifice to God, and fitting of them for an eternal enjoying him; a self-efficiency to these things without Christ, is, as to the Aaronical priesthood, vehemently denied; as to this, that is defective.

For under it the people received the law; for with the priesthood, about the time of its institution by God, the Iraelitish church, God’s covenanted people, received the law; by which, as well as by its priesthood, there is no expiation, remission, nor eternal life to be obtained, Gal 3:17-19; compare Mal 2:4-8. This law and priesthood being types of far better to succeed them, they were but leading to them, which in the fulness of time were to be revealed, and which should perfect what they could not, Gal 3:23,24; 4:3-5.

What further need was there, &c.? It was needful, since the Levitical priesthood and law could not perfect sinners, that another should take place which could perfect them. David therefore, who lived above four hundred years after their institution, and feeling their imperfection, did by the Spirit foresee and tell of a royal priesthood and law to take place after this, that should perfect sinners, which could not be done by any called after Aaron’s imperfect order. This was the Lord Christ the Messiah, who must be after the order of Melchisedec, Psa 110:4, and who by his priesthood and law should abundantly effect it; which was far more excellent for both, than any of the Levitical family can pretend to.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11-19. Point fourth. The declaration of the psalmist, affirming another order of priesthood than the Levitical: also a change of the law of descent, and showing that one order, the Levitical, is transient, and the other, Melchizedekian, is supreme and permanent.

11. If the Levitical priesthood was not defective, what need of another order, as predicted by the psalmist?

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 11, 12. If then perfection (teleiwsiv : cf. oudewsen o nomov) were through the Levitical priesthood for under it (rather, upon it, on the ground of it) the people hath received the Law, what need was there that another (rather, a different) priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. Here a further thought is introduced. So far the superiority of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to the Aaronic has been shown. The new thought is that the very mention in the psalm of a different order of priesthood implies that the old order, and with it the whole legal dispensation which depended on it, was imperfect and to be superseded. This is the general drift of vers. 11, 12, though the sequence of thought in their several clauses is not easy to follow. Ideas in the writer"s mind, not expressed, seem necessary to be understood. In the parenthetical clause of ver. 11, ep auth and nenomoyethtai are decidedly to be preferred, on the ground of authority, to ep auth and nenomoyethto of the Textus Receptus. "The meaning of the clause (whatever be the precise thought connecting it with the sentence in which it stands) is that the whole Law rested on the institution of the priesthood; not the priests only, but the whole people (o laov), received their Law as grounded on it. On the same idea depends ver. 12, where it is said that a change of the priesthood involves of necessity a change of the Law.

The verses next following serve to remove all doubt that there is a complete change of the priesthood; the proofs being, not only the patent fact that the Messiah is of the tribe, not of Levi, but of Judah (vers. 13, 14), but also, for mere abundant evidence of the Divine purpose, that significant utterance, again adduced, about his being after the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchizedek (vers. 15, 16, 17).

Vers. 11-28. Christ greater than Aaron. This passage is really just a commentary on the Old Testament oracle contained in Psa_110:4. There might appropriately be prefixed to it as a motto the words, "Behold, a greater than Aaron is here.

I THE IMPERFECTION OF THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD. (Vers. 11-19) Aaron"s mediation could not satisfy justice, or pacify conscience, or sanctify the heart. All that it could do was to exhibit a faint adumbration of the ideal priesthood. The words of Psa_110:4 suggest this insufficiency, for they contain the promise of the Messianic priesthood.

1. Jesus was of other descent. (Vers. 11-14) He belonged to the tribe of Judah; and not, like Aaron"s sons, to the ecclesiastical tribe of Levi. The fact of this change in itself proves the inefficacy of the hereditary Hebrew priesthood.

2. His priesthood is of everlasting duration. (Vers. 15-17) The Jewish priests one by one succumbed to death; but Jesus Christ is himself "the Life," Life resides essentially and originally in him. So his priesthood is abiding; his official dignity remains "forever." From this it follows (vers. 18, 19) that the Levitical priesthood, and the entire ceremonial law which enshrined it, have been abrogated; and in their stead has come the introduction of "a better hope the hope of an efficient priesthood, of a dispensation both spiritual and permanent, and thus of immediate and perfect access to God.

II THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST"S PRIESTHOOD TO THE LEVITICAL. (Vers. 20-28) Jesus is the true Priest of mankind, for whom the nations have been waiting. He is the Apostle of God to men, and the prevailing Intercessor with God for men. This passage reminds us how infinitely exalted his priesthood is above that of Aaron.

1. He was consecrated with an oath. (Vers. 20-22) No Levitical priest was installed thus solemnly. The Divine oath shows the certainty and importance and immutability of the thing sworn. It reminds us that the priesthood of our Lord enters into the very substance of the everlasting covenant.

2. His priesthood is intransferable. (Vers. 23-25) The Levitical priesthood had this defect, that it required to be conveyed from one man to another. But, although Christ died, his death did not "hinder him from continuing;" it did not even temporarily interrupt the exercise of his priesthood. For he died voluntarily. He laid himself as Victim upon the altar. And, by dying, he conquered death, through the power of his indissoluble life. So, his mediatorial authority is intransferable.

3. His character is holy. (Ver. 26) The Levitical priests had "infirmity," and needed to offer sacrifices first for their own sins. Even the most pious men among them had been, of course, morally imperfect; and some of the high priests such as Caiaphas who were not godly men, had been notorious for their wickedness. But "the High Priest of our confession" has a pure nature. He lived on earth a stainless life. He was "separated from sinners;" i.e. he showed on every side of his character that he belonged to another category than that of sinners. And his spotless holiness was in the fullest harmony with our spiritual need; it was, indeed, indispensably necessary, and in every way most becoming" and beautiful, in relation to us.

4. His sacrifice is perfect. (Vers. 27, 28) The Jewish priests had to offer up sacrifices "daily same sacrifices year by year with laborious and wearisome iteration. But the one sacrifice of Christ is in itself all-sufficient to expiate guilt, cleanse the conscience, and purify the soul. His blood has virtue to atone, for it is the blood of God.

5. He ministers in the real sanctuary. (Vers. 26, 28) Aaron"s ministry was carried on in a moving tent of curtain-work and wood-work a tent, too, which seems to have had no pavement but the naked ground. His successors, likewise, served in what was at best a perishable "sanctuary of this world." But Jesus now ministers in "heaven itself," the most holy place of the new covenant. (The apostle emphasizes this point in Heb_8:1-6)

In conclusion, let us reflect upon this central thought of the passage the immortal heavenly life of our High Priest. He is a Divine person; and his Divine nature is the basis of his "endless life." Hence the perfection of his power to save.

Vers. 11-25. Further proofs of the superiority of Christ"s priesthood involved in the symbol of Melchizedek.

Note: The word "Law" in vers. 11, 12, 19 must not be understood to refer to the Jewish system, but simply to the code of regulations by which the priesthood was appointed. The apostle is thinking throughout the chapter, not of the Jewish dispensation, but of the priesthood. The expression, "weak and unprofitable," does not imply that there was failure in God"s former method. The regulations about the Jewish priesthood were intended to be "weak and unprofitable;" that was their benefit. Only thus could they lead on to the heavenly things they foreshadowed.

I CONSIDER THE PROOFS IN THIS PASSAGE OF THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST"S PRIESTHOOD. They are all based on Psa_110:4.

1. The Divine appointment of a second priesthood by a different mode proves its superiority to the former. (Vers. 11-18) Their Scriptures declared that the Messiah did come from a different tribe to Aaron, and was appointed Priest on a different principle; not by a mere physical arrangement sonship to another, a "carnal commandment," or regulation but by his own inherent life. Since God could not remove what was perfect, or supersede a good arrangement by a worse, that which appeared to take the place of the old was necessarily superior to it.

2. The greater solemnity of the appointment of this second priesthood proves its superiority to the former. (Vers. 20-22) Aaron and his sons were appointed by a simple revelation of the Divine will. (Exo_28:1) The terms of the appointment of Jesus are Lord sware, and will not repent." When God purposed what was not to change he confirmed it by an oath, and probably the Jews understood that well. God is "never represented in Scripture as swearing to anything but what is fixed and immutable" (Dr. Brown). The fact that Christ was made priest not without an oath shows that his priesthood was of supreme importance.

3. The eternal permanence of this second priesthood Troves its superiority to the former. (Vers. 23-25) The Jewish priests were subject to human frailties and imperfections; their term of service swiftly passed, and their place was taken by another. Indeed, the whole family might be exterminated (specially when at first, in the wilderness, it consisted of but five men) by pestilence, crime, or war, and Israel would find itself, as today, with no priest, no atonement, no mercy-seat, no mediator. That shows the inadequacy of that priesthood. But Christ is High Priest forever "according to the power of an indissoluble life." How superior to that which is according to the flesh! "All flesh is grass.

II GLANCE AT SOME OF THE PRACTICAL TRUTHS INVOLVED IN THIS SUPERIORITY.

1. That the Aaronic priesthood is superseded by the priesthood of Christ.

The Romish doctrine that an order of men, on the mythical ground that they can trace their succession to the apostles, are the appointed mediators between God and man, is a repetition of the Levitical system. But this priesthood is unnecessary, since Christ is in every point superior to it, and they who have Jesus do not need Aaron. Moreover, this carnal, genealogical priesthood is abolished by God, and shown to have been only a temporary expedient at the best.

2. That what the old dispensation did for a few, the Christian does for all. In the Old Testament the priests are those who draw nigh to God (e.g. Lev_10:3) whilst the multitude stood without. Contrast ver. 10. "We" who are not of Levi"s tribe, but simply believers in Christ, may now enter the Holiest of all that is, we are all priests. Christ"s high priesthood involves the priesthood of all believers. "Those who draw nigh to God "is the Christian name.

3. That what the ceremonial law could not do, Jesus can. Whilst the Levitical system was "weak and unprofitable," the priesthood of Jesus brought in a system that was perfect. The perfection of a priestly system consisted in its ability to bring men unto God. Men are crying, "Nearer, my God, to thee," in vain, because they seek it through human aid, religious ceremonies, legal observances; they have gone back to Judaism, which is dead and cannot help them. Now let them try Jesus. Where Aaron fails, Jesus succeeds. "He is able to save them to," etc. C.N.

Vers. 11-14. A Divine priesthood.

I THE DIVINE WISDOM JUSTIFIED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF A PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK, The argument is, that if perfection had been realized by the Law of Moses there would have been no change in the methods of worship and the order of the ministry. It is not consistent with the wisdom of God to do and undo, and to repair imperfections and supply deficiencies by after-thoughts and supplementary arrangements. The true and Divine purpose of the Law of Moses was to prepare for something better. It was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. The Jews still cling to it as an unchangeable institution, and refuse to leave the wilderness of Sinai for the Canaan of gospel light and privilege. The prediction which referred to another Priest who should be after the order of Melchizedek was a proof that the Aaronic ministry was provisional, and therefore another order was necessary to harmonize with that reign of grace, unexampled wealth of privilege, and cheering prospects of eternal life which the gospel provides for sinful men. The change of dispensation is no proof of change in the mind of God, since the Jewish Law was a kind of parenthesis which gives meaning to revelations which went before and followed after; and the old tabernacle yields to the enduring fabric of grace against which "the gates of hell shall not prevail.

II THE CHANGE OF PRIESTHOOD WAS NECESSARY FOR THE HARMONY AND CONSISTENCY OF DIVINE ARRANGEMENTS IN WORSHIP. It pleased God to act according to the counsel of his own will in the distribution of offices in the worship and national affairs of his ancient people Israel. No man was allowed to invade them who did not belong to the families and tribes which he chose to serve him. Hence the family of Levi was appointed to be priests, and members of the tribe of Judah were ordained to be kings over the nation. David, as a descendant from Judah, received many promises, and was permitted to enjoy prospects of the future dignity of his seed in him who was "the Root and Offspring of David, and the bright and morning Star." But there is no word of promise that any of his tribe should minister at the altar and stand in the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. Uzziah, one of the kings of the line of Judah, attempted to offer incense, and was in the presumptuous act smitten with leprosy, and was thrust, as an unclean person, from the temple courts. (2Ch_26:20) Moses laid down the law of the priesthood, and in none of the manifold details of priesthood, sacrifice, and worship, nor in any of the predictions of the future history of the tribes, is there any priestly appointment given to the family of Judah. The law must be changed. The new covenant must have its special and suitable ministry, and in the sphere of the gospels the dignity, sufficiency, and pre-eminence of Jesus Christ find their suitable exercise. It pleases God to put certain things together, and what "he hath joined, let no man put asunder. B.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The apostle now demonstrates that the Levitical priesthood must yield to the priesthood of Christ, because Melchisedec, after whose order he is a priest,

1. Is opposed to Aaron, ver. 11-14.

2. Hath no end of life, ver. 15-19, but "remaineth a priest continually." If now perfection were by the Levitical priesthood - If this perfectly answered all God's designs and man's wants For under it the people received the law - Whence some might infer, that perfection was by that priesthood. What farther need was there, that another priest - Of a new order, should be set up? From this single consideration it is plain, that both the priesthood and the law, which were inseparably connected, were now to give way to a better priesthood and more excellent dispensation.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood and of the Mosaic system:

v. 11.If, therefore, perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the Law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

v. 12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law.

v. 13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

v. 14. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

v. 15. And it is yet far more evident; for that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest,

v. 16. who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

v. 17. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

v. 18. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

v. 19. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Careful and tactful arguing was required at this point, lest the Jewish Christians be offended without need and the attempt to win them to a sound understanding of Christ’s importance fail. But the arguments go forward with inexorable force: If, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood,—for upon it the people received the Law,—what further need would there have been that another priest should arise, and one not named after the order of Aaron? If the Levitical priesthood had actually been able to accomplish what many people insisted it could do, if men through its ministration could have been brought to that state in which they had been considered perfect by a just God, if forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation could have been imparted through the teaching of the Law and the offering of sacrifices, then it would have been foolish to have another priest come. It was true indeed that the children of Israel received their entire legislation on the basis of the Levitical priesthood. All the precepts of the Ceremonial Law, the entire administration of the theocratic form of government, was connected with the priestly service. And yet God ordained and appointed another Priest, who, strange to say, was not called after the order of Aaron, did not belong to the tribe of Levi, but arose after the order of Melchizedek. As the writer intimates, there must have been some important reason why God should make this provision, even during the age of prophecy. For the story of Melchizedek is recorded of a time more than four hundred years before the Law was given on Mount Sinai, and almost five hundred years after the journey through the wilderness David prophesied that another priest would arise after the order of Melchizedek, Psa 110:4.

There is another point to be considered in this connection: For if the priesthood is changed, there is of necessity a change also of the Law. By their acceptance of Jesus as the High Priest of the new dispensation, the Jewish Christians had openly acknowledged a change in the priesthood. It followed, then, that the Law which was bound up with the Old Testament priesthood was also changed or abrogated. This change was necessary, it followed as a logical result. The sacrificial offerings of the Old Testament could not, in themselves, reconcile God to man. Only He in whom all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled could bring about this perfect condition.

This enormous and epochal change was taking place in accordance with the prophecy of old: For He of whom this is said belongs to a different tribe, of which no one ever attended at the altar; for it is evident that out of Judah our Lord sprang, to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. The word of David, Psa 110:4, was said with regard to Jesus, the true High Priest, in whom all the types of old are fulfilled. But the Messiah did not belong to the tribe of Levi; He did not belong to those to whom God had entrusted the ministry of the altar. He became rather, by His incarnation, a member of a different tribe, of the tribe of Judah, as was well known, Gen 49:8-10. This was the tribe and family from which the Savior, our great High Priest, sprang, a tribe to which Moses had said nothing about priests, giving them no intimation that any priest would ever be taken out of their midst. The fact, then, that Jesus has proved Himself to be the great High Priest, and has been accepted as such, shows that the Levitical priesthood and the entire Mosaic system have been abrogated.

That a change has been inaugurated and is in force follows from still another fact: And still more abundantly is it evident, if according to the likeness of Melchizedek another priest arises, who has become such not after the law of an ordinance of the flesh, but according to the power of an indissoluble life. By the prophecy of God a new and wonderful Priest was to make His appearance, who was to enter upon His office, not according to ordinances which concerned external, temporal matters, such as the pedigree and the physical condition of the body, Lev 21:16-23, but one according to the likeness of Melchizedek, of whom the same things might be said, who entered upon His office according to the power of the indissoluble, endless life, according to the singular power of the eternal and unchangeable divine life which was transmitted also to His human nature. Even death could not dissolve and take away the power of this divine life; for He conquered death and brought back eternal life out of death. That which enabled the Son of God to be Messianic King and High Priest of men is His rank as Son, but as the Son who truly took into His divine person the weakness of the human flesh and blood and became the Redeemer according to both natures. All this is included when God testifies, Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. Incidentally the point is here emphasized that Christ’s redeemership did not come to an end, but that it is perennially new and exists in full power for the comfort of all sinners.

Through this installation of Christ into His office the change referred to above has been brought about: For a disannulment took place of the previous commandment on account of its weakness and uselessness; for the Law perfected nothing, but the introduction of a better hope did, through which we draw near to God. By the incarnation of Christ in the fullness of time, by His entering upon the work of His office, especially as our great High Priest, the previous, the Old Testament commandment, which had established and upheld the Levitical priesthood, was abrogated and disannulled, being set aside in favor of, and superseded by, the order of salvation in which Jesus Christ is the center. This had to come about on account of weakness and uselessness of the Old Testament priesthood, which failed utterly in bringing men back into the right relation to God. The Law revealed the holy will of God; it taught ceremonies, rudiments; it hinted, it foreshadowed, it presented types; but it brought nothing to perfection, did not effect man’s return into the fellowship of God. This was brought about only by the introduction of the better hope in Christ, of the powerful, comforting hope by which we draw near to God without the fear of eternal damnation, not with confidence in our own works and merits, but with a simple reliance in the perfect atonement and reconciliation gained for us by our great High Priest. There is no longer a need of a Levitical priesthood, of a Mosaic system, there is no need of depending upon an imperfect and useless system of outward forms and ceremonies; for in Christ and His work we have the hope of faith, which is sure to bring us into God’s presence and fellowship.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In perfection, that is, a perfect expiation and remission of sin, could have been made by the sacrifice which the legal priests offered, there should then have been no need that God should institute a priest of another and more excellent order, namely, his own Son, to be a priest after Melchizedek’s order, and not after the order of Aaron.

Where note, That perfection is denied in the Levitical pristhood, and ascribed to the priesthood of Christ. To perfect sinful man, is to free him from the guilt of sin, and from the direful and dismal consequences of sin, and to make him righteous and holy, capable of communion with God, both here and here after. Now this the Levitical pristhood could not do. "But Jesus Christ has by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified," Heb 10:14.

Thus the apostle infers the necessity of changing the pristhood: And next he tells us, Ver. . That the Change of the Levitical priesthood necessarily draweth along with it a change of the Levitical law, and the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace; for the Levitical priesthood and the Levitical law do both stand and fall together: The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. By the changing of the priesthood, understand the abolition of it; by the change of the law, understand the abrogation of it; by the word necessity, understand that the change was not casual and contingent, but absolutely needful, in regard of the imperfection and inability of the Levitical priesthood to effect any such thing.

Learn hence, That the promulgation of the gospel, and the instution of Christianity, did abrogate the Levitical law, and make it of no farce. This might be the reason why God did not only be the Death and Sacrifice of Christ, the great High Priest, abolish the Levitical Priesthood, but also destroyed the Temple itself, where he had put his name, and never suffered it to be rebuilt; denoting thereby the utter abolition of the Levitical Presthood, and the total abrogation of the ceremonial law.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11–17. The superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek to that of Aaron in dignity having been shown, the imperfection of the latter is next pointed out. If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood. If it effected the complete pardon of sins and made men holy. What further need was there, etc. If it gave all needful spiritual blessings there would be no need of another priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood would have been continued on forever. But a change of the priesthood has been predicted, as will soon be shown.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Now

This does not mean "at this moment," but is used to draw attention to the important point that follows.

what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the manner of Melchizedek, and not be considered to be after the manner of Aaron?

This question emphasizes that it was unexpected that priests come after the order of Melchizedek. AT: "no one would have needed another priest, one who was like Melchizedek and not like Aaron, to arise." (See: Rhetorical Question)

to arise

"to come" or "to appear"

after the manner of Melchizedek

This means that Christ as a priest has things in common with Melchizedek as a priest. AT: "in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest"

not be considered to be after the manner of Aaron

This can be stated in active form. AT: "not be after the manner of Aaron" or "who is not a priest like Aaron" (See: Active or Passive)

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "For when God changed the priesthood, he also had to change the law" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

perfect

Levi

priest

receive

law

Aaron

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

11–19. BECAUSE THE PERMANENCE OF HIS PRIESTHOOD, CONTINUED BY CHRIST, IMPLIED THE ABROGATION OF THE WHOLE LEVITIC LAW

11. ἐπʼ αὐτῆς אABCDE. The rec. has ἐπʼ αὐτῇ, K al.

νενομοθέτηται אABCD. Rec. νενομοθέτητο.

11. Εἰ μὲν οὗν κ.τ.λ. At this point begins the a fortiori argument which occupies the next nine verses. “Perfection” (compare the verb in Heb 9:9, Heb 10:1; Heb 10:14, Heb 11:40) means power of perfectionment, capacity to achieve the end in view; but this was not to be attained through the Levitic priesthood. The FIFTH point of superiority is that the Melchisedek Priesthood implies the abrogation of the Levitic, and of the whole law which was based upon it.

ἐπʼ αὐτῆς, “for on the basis of it.” The writer regards the Priesthood rather than the Law as constituting the basis of the whole Mosaic system; so that into this slight parenthesis he really infuses the essence of his argument. The Priesthood is obviously changed. For otherwise the Theocratic King of Psalms 110. would not have been called “a Priest after the order of Melchisedek” but “after the order of Aaron.” Clearly then “the order of Aaron” admitted of no attainment of perfection through its means. But if the Priesthood was thus condemned as imperfect and inefficient, the Law was equally disparaged as a transitory institution. Righteousness did not “come by the Law”; if it could so have come Christ would have died in vain (Gal 2:21. Comp. Heb 10:1-14).

ὁ λαὸς … νενομοθέτηται. As νομ. takes the dat. (LXX.) the noun which denotes the person becomes the subject of the passive verb. Winer, p. 326.

τίς ἔτι χρεία. We may supply either ἧν or ἂν ἦν. There could be no need, since none of God’s actions or dispensations are superfluous.

ἕτερον … ἱερέα. Not “another priest” as in A. V. (which would have required ἄλλον) but “a different priest.”

καὶ οὐ … λέγεσθαι, “and that he should not be said (viz. in Psa 110:4) to be after the order of Aaron.” If the οὐ seem harsh (instead of μὴ) in this construction, we may with Winer (p. 605) join the οὐ to κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, “and be called ‘not after the order of Aaron.’ ” That λέγεσθαι does not here mean eligi is clear from Heb 7:13.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11-25.] Further proofs of the perfection of Christ’s priesthood, as compared with the Levitical: (11-14) in that He sprang from a tribe not recognized as a priestly one by the law, thus setting aside the law: (15-19) in that He was constituted priest not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life, thus impugning the former commandment as weak and unprofitable: (20-22) in that He was made with an oath, they without one: (23, 24) in that they by reason of their transitoriness were many, He, one and unchangeable.

11.] If again (this seems the nearest English expression to εἰ μὲν οὖν. It takes up the reasoning, not from the point immediately preceding, but from the main line of argument, of which what has just preceded has been merely a co-ordinate illustration. So that it is not necessary to say here, as some have attempted to do, from what point in the preceding chapters the reasoning is resumed. The main line of thought is again referred to, dependently on the promise of Psa 110:4, as made to our Lord and verified in Him) perfection (in the widest sense: the bringing of man to his highest state, viz, that of salvation and sanctification: see on ver. 19, οὐδὲν ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος. Commentators have too much limited it: Grot. understands perfection of priesthood (“quod in genere sacerdotii perfectissimum est”): Primasius and Beza, moral perfection: Estius, Schlichting, al., perfect remission of sins. But manifestly these two latter are included in the idea, which is a far more extensive one than either) were (ἦν may be rendered either by the imperf. subj. or pluperf. subj. The former, ‘if perfection were,’ would imply ‘it is not:’ the latter, ‘if perfection had been,’ would imply, ‘it was not.’ The difficulty of deciding here arises from the apodosis being given in an elliptic form, viz. in that of a question in which the verb is left out) by means of (could be brought about by the instrumentality of) the Levitical priesthood (on ἱερωσύνη, see note, ver. 5),—for upon it (i. e. τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης: not as, reading ἐπʼ αὐτῇ, many Commentators, τελειώσει, for the sake of obtaining perfection. Three meanings are legitimate for ἐπʼ αὐτῆς. 1. Concerning it, it being the objective basis or substratum of the νομοθέτησις: as in οὐλέγει.… ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, Gal 3:16: σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων, Joh 6:2. This is taken by Schlichting, Grot., Bleek. So ‘disserere’ or ‘scribere super se.’ 2. In its time, as ἐπʼ Ὀλυμπιάδος, ἐπʼ ἄρχοντος. 3. On its ground, it being the subjective basis or substratum of the νομοθέτησις: it being presupposed, and the law-giving proceeding on it as ex concesso. This is taken with slight variations, by De Wette, Lünemann, Ebrard, al. And this seems most agreeable to the sense. For (1) would seem hardly to account for the insertion of the parenthesis at all: that the law was enacted concerning the priesthood, would certainly be no reason for here introducing it: still less would the form of the parenthesis thus be accounted for, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομ., see below: and (2) again, being a mere notice of date, would not account for the occurrence of the parenthesis. But it we consider the priesthood as the basis on which the law was constructed, so that not the priests only, but the people also (cf. the same παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, πάντα τὸν λαόν, in ch. 9:19) were involved in the question of the dignity and finality of the priesthood, then a sufficient reason seems to be gained for inserting the parenthesis: q. d. not only they, but the whole system of which the priesthood was the basis and centre) the people (emphatic: not ἐπʼ αὐτῆς γὰρ ὁ λαός, but ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς: see above) hath received the law (the verb νομοθετεῖν is common both in classical and Hellenistic Greek. It is used sometimes with a dative of the person, so Xen. Rev_15, περὶ Λυκούργου τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίοις νομοθετήσαντος,—sometimes with an accus. of the thing, so Xen. Rep. Laced. v. 1, ἃ μὲν οὖν ἑκάστῃ ἡλικίᾳ ἐνομοθέτησεν ὁ Λυκοῦργος. The use of the passive hence is obvious: and although not justified by Greek usage, finds a parallel in such expressions as πιστεύομαί τι, εὐαγγελίζομαι, &c.: see Winer, § 39. 1, edn. 6. The LXX use the word rather differently, for to teach: e. g. Psa 24:8, νομοθετήσει ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐν ὁδῷ,—ver. 12, νομοθετήσει αὐτῷ ἐν ὁδῷ: Ps. 118:33, νομοθέτησόν με κύριε τὴν ὁδὸν τῶν δικαιωμάτων σου. The perfect is used, as indicating the fact that the people was still remaining and observing the law),—what further need (was there) (what need after that,—any longer, that being so: so Sext. Empir. cited by Wetst.: εἰ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως λαμβάνεταί τινα, καί ἐστι πιστά, τίς ἔτι χρεία ἀποδεικνύναι αὐτά;) that a different priest (ἕτερον, more than ἄλλον—not only another, but of a different kind) should arise (Herod. iii. 66, Σμέρδιν … βασιλέα ἀνεστεῶτα. See reff. There is no idea in it of suddenness or unexpectedness, as Böhme (not Tholuck in his last edn.)), after the order of Melchisedek, and that he (the priest that should arise) is said to be not after the order of Aaron (there have been various views as to the construction. Some, as Faber Stap., Luther, al., take the whole as one sentence only, thus: τίς ἔτι χρεία λέγεσθαι κατὰ τ. τάξ. Μ. ἕτ. ἀνίστ. ἱερέα, κ. οὐ κατὰ τ. τάξ. Ἀαρ., “what further need was there for it to be said that another priest should arise, after Melchisedek’s, and not after Aaron’s order?” But thus we should have expected ἀνίστ. to be future (this perhaps is not decisive, but notwithstanding Tholuck’s protest against Bleek, I cannot help still believing it would have been so): besides that the transposition of the infinitives is very harsh (Tholuck tries to justify this by ὅσῳ … τοσούτῳ τὸ τί χρὴ ποιεῖν συμβουλεῦσαι χαλεπώτερον εἶναι, Demosth. p. 66. But the case is not parallel, inasmuch as there is no ambiguity in it). Besides which, ἕτερα can hardly have any other meaning than that in ver. 15, not = ἄλλος, but implying diversity of nature and order: in which case it cannot be the subject to λέγεσθαι, which has κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρών for its predicate, thus nullifying the ἕτερον. So that we must either take λέγεσθαι impersonal, ‘that it is said,’ or, which is preferable, supply as above, ‘that he (the coming priest) is said.’ οὐ would more naturally be μή, in a sentence expressing necessity, which of itself involves a judgment, see Hartung, Partikell. ii. 125. But in such cases οὐ may stand where the denial is carried in the particle itself, which seems to bring out a negative expression as set over against a positive one: e. g. Aristoph. Eccles. 581, ἀλλʼ οὐ μέλλειν ἀλλʼ ἅπτεσθαι καὶ δὴ χρὴ τὰς διανοίας: Thuc. i. 51, ὑποτοπήσαντες ἀπʼ Ἀθηνῶν εἶναι οὐχ ὅσας ἑώρων ἀλλὰ πλείους. So here the οὐ must be closely joined with κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρ., not with λέγεσθαι: or we must with Bleek suppose that χρεία ἦν or ἠδύνατο is to be supplied with οὐ)?

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In Christ, as the Melchisedec - priest, the ideal of the priesthood is realized.

Perfection [τελειωσις] . Only here and Luk 1:45. The act or process of consummating. By this word is signified the establishment of a perfect fellowship between God and the worshipper. See ch. Heb 9:9; Heb 10:1.

Priesthood [ιερωσυνης] . Only in Hebrews. See vers. 12, 14. It expresses the abstract notion of the priest 's office; while iJeratia ver. 5, expresses the priestly service.

For under it the people received the law [γαρ επ αυτης νενομοθετηται] . Under, rather on the basis of. The verb lit. the law has been laid down Only here and ch. Heb 8:6.

What further need [τις ετι χρεια] . Eti after that, assuming that there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood.

Another priest [ετερον ιερεα] . Not merely another, but a different kind of priest. See on Mt 6:24.

Should rise [ανιστασθαι] . In Hebrews only here and ver. 15, both times in connection with priest.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. εἰ μὲν οὖν.. ἦν... τίς ἔτι χρεία... bringing to perfection... what further need would there have been...? Vulg.S3 ergoconsummatio...crat...quidadhuc necessarium...f Tho arguuncnt starts from tho line of thouglit just laid down. Before the Levitical priesthood was organised another typo of priesthood had been foreshewn. But if the utmost object of a priesthood—of a divine provision for man’s p to his true goal—had been capable of attainment under the Mosaic order, what need would there have been that another priest should arise and that this now priest should be styled after a different order? Experience however proved its necessity. The Levitical priesthood was, and was proved to be, only provisional. It could not effect that to which it pointed. This conviction was expressed by the Pealmist when he recalled tho earlier type. The conditional form (εἰ.. ἦν.. τίς ἔτι xpeia...;) may be rendered either ‘if there had been (which was not the case) what further need would there have beon (as in fact there was)?’ or ‘if thore were (as is not the case) what further need would there be (as there

37. By tho use of ἕτερον (not ἄλλον) the two priesthoods are directly com-

to the exclusion of all others. Contrast iv. 8 (wept ἄλλης ἡμ.).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), The Epistle to the Hebrews (1889) and The Epistles of St John (1883) — public domain (pre-1929). Text recovered from Internet Archive / Google Books OCR scans. Westcott’s Gospel of John commentary is not included (its OCR lost the chapter running-heads required for reliable verse-keying). Some Greek quoted in the Hebrews volume is imperfectly rendered by the OCR.